48:0245(20)CA - - HHS, Regional Personnel Office, Seattle, WA and Jeffrey A. Saul - - 1993 FLRAdec CA - - v48 p245
[ v48 p245 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
48 FLRA No. 20
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
REGIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICE
JEFFREY A. SAUL, AN INDIVIDUAL
(47 FLRA 1338 (1993))
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
August 17, 1993
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on the Respondent's request for reconsideration of our decision in 47 FLRA 1338 (1993). The General Counsel has filed an opposition to the Respondent's request. The Charging Party did not file a response to the request.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Respondent has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, we will deny the Respondent's request for reconsideration.
II. Our Decision in 47 FLRA 1338
In 47 FLRA 1338, the Authority found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to credit the Charging Party's Federal union experience in determining his qualifications for a position. In so doing, we rejected the Respondent's argument that it prohibited consideration of such experience to ensure compliance with section 7116(a)(2) of the Statute. We noted, in this regard, that there was no evidence that "the Respondent refused to credit any relevant experience or category of relevant experience, other than Federal union activity." Id. at 1342. We also noted that a policy "which makes no distinctions based on union activity appears to promote management neutrality with regard to its treatment of employees who do, and do not, choose such actions." Id. at 1343.
III. Request for Reconsideration
The Respondent contends that the Authority should reconsider its decision in 47 FLRA 1338 because the Authority did not address "two major elements of the agency's argument in defense of it actions." Request at 1. The Respondent claims that the Authority did not consider its arguments that:
(1) the agency is required to maintain strict neutrality with regard to an employee's protected activities so as not to encourage or discourage an employee in the exercise of such activity; and,
(2) "protected activity" does not equate to "outside activity," and an employee engaged in "protected" activity is not similarly situated to an employee engaged in "outside" activity.
Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original).
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to move for reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. The Respondent fails to establish such "extraordinary circumstances" in this case.
The arguments presented by the Respondent in support of its request for reconsideration cons