46:0920(83)AR - - AFGE Local 916 and Air Force, Tinker AFB, OK - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v46 p920
[ v46 p920 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
46 FLRA No. 83
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
December 10, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on a motion filed by the Union seeking reconsideration of an Authority Order dismissing the Union's exceptions to an arbitration award. The Authority dismissed the exceptions because the Union failed to respond to an earlier Order granting the Union an opportunity to correct a deficiency in its exceptions. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's motion for reconsideration.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's Order dismissing the exceptions. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.
The Union filed exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Raymond R. Hawkins. By Order dated July 30, 1992, the Authority notified the Union that its exceptions did not comply with the procedural requirement set forth in section 2429.27(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations that any document filed with the Authority must be served on "all counsel of record or other designated representative(s) of parties[.]" The Order stated that the Union had not furnished a statement of service showing that the Agency's representative of record at the arbitration hearing, Janice E. Fields, was served. The Union was directed to correct the deficiency by August 12, 1992, and was notified that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the exceptions.
The Union did not timely respond to the Authority's July 30 Order. Accordingly, by Order dated August 21, 1992, the Authority dismissed the Union's exceptions.
III. The Union's Motion for Reconsideration
The Union requests that the Authority reconsider the August 21 Order and review the Union's exceptions on their merits.
The Union asserts that it properly served the Agency's representative with its exceptions. It contends that it followed the parties' practice of sending all correspondence regarding arbitrations to the Agency's labor relations office, which distributes the correspondence to the appropriate official. The Union maintains that the exceptions' service page showed the correct routing symbol for the Agency's representative at the hearing. The Union states that the incorrect name on the service sheet was "merely a typo from a form letter." Motion for Reconsideration at 1. The Union argues that the failure to state the correct name was "a minor technicality" and that, in any event, a different office has the responsibility for responding to exceptions and "the Agency showed no harm done." Id.
The Union does not explain why it did not timely respond to the July 30 Order.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has failed to establish such extraordinary circumstances in this case.
The Union does not deny that the service sheet accompanying its exceptions did not contain the correct name of the Agency's representative. The Union argues, however, that because it used the correct routing symbol and because the Agency response to exceptions is prepared in a different office, the deficiency resulted in no harm to the Agency. In view of the fact that the Agency did not respond to the exceptions and the Union has not demonstrated that in fact the appropriate official received the exceptions, we conclude that the Union has not established that the Agency suffered no harm from the improper service. Compare American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2663 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, 32 FLRA 619 (1988) (the union was not prevented from fully setting forth its position in response to the agency's statement of position prior to the issuance of the Authority's decision and could not establish that it had been harmed by the manner in which the statement of position was served).
In addition, the Union has not even attempted to explain why it did not respond in a timely manner to the Authority's July 30 Order. Thus, the Union has