47:0867(81)AR - - Air Force Logistics Command, Tinker AFB, OK and AFGE Local 916 - - 1993 FLRAdec AR - - v47 p861



[ v47 p861 ]
47:0861(81)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


47 FLRA No. 81

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 916

(Union)

0-AR-2359

(47 FLRA 488 (1993))

_____

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

June 11, 1993

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on the Union's request for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 47 FLRA 488 (1993). The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request.

II. Arbitrator's Award and the Decision in 47 FLRA 488

As set forth in more detail in 47 FLRA 488, the Arbitrator sustained a grievance alleging that the Agency improperly terminated the grievant's employment as the result of a reduction-in-force (RIF). The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency incorrectly determined the grievant's tenure group status (1) and that the Agency violated section 7114 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) when it failed to negotiate with the Union over the issuance of an Air Force regulation which supplemented Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Supplement 351-1. As his award, the Arbitrator, as relevant here, directed the Agency to place the grievant in a different tenure group and, on that basis, rerun the RIF.(2) The Arbitrator further directed that, if the rerun of the RIF resulted in retention of the grievant, the Agency was to provide the grievant backpay.

In 47 FLRA 488, we sustained, in part, the Agency's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award. In particular, we set aside the portion of the award directing the Agency to place the grievant in a different tenure group and rerun the RIF, as contrary to FPM Supplement 351-1. We denied the Agency's exceptions to the portion of the award finding that the Agency improperly failed to negotiate over the Agency regulation. We noted, in this connection, that neither party argued that the disputed regulation affected the outcome of the case.

III. Request for Reconsideration

Although the Union's arguments are not clear, it appears that the Union is arguing that the Agency failed to conduct the RIF in accordance with law. In this regard, the Union contends that, although the Agency admitted its violation of section 7114 of the Statute, the Agency argued to the Arbitrator that it conducted the RIF "in compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations." Request at 2 (emphasis omitted). The Union also argues that the disputed Agency regulation is contrary to FPM Supplement 351-1. The Union contends that, although the disputed regulation was not specifically applied to the grievant, its application to other employees may have affected the grievant's retention rights. Finally, the Union claims that the Authority's decision has resulted in confusion as to whether the Agency must reinstate the grievant.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision.

We conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of section 2429.17. In this regard, the Union had ample time to raise its arguments in response to the Agency's exceptions to the award. We conclude that the Union's arguments constitute mere disagreement with our findings and conclusions in 47 FLRA 488, and are an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. As such, these arguments do not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, we will deny the request for reconsideration. See, for example, U.S. Department of the Army, Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-6, 45 FLRA 883, 885 (1992).(3)

V. Order

The Union's request for reconsideration is denied.




FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

1.