48:0543(52)AR - - DOD, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region West, Stockton, CA and AFGE, Local 1857 - - 1993 FLRAdec AR - - v48 p543
[ v48 p543 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
48 FLRA No. 52
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION REGION WEST
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(48 FLRA 221 (1993))
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
September 24, 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 our decision in 48 FLRA 221 (1993). The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's request.(*)
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request for reconsideration.
II. Arbitrator's Award and the Decision in 48 FLRA 221
In 48 FLRA 221, the Union had filed grievances on behalf of two grievants who alleged that they were improperly denied overtime work to which they were entitled. The Arbitrator sustained the grievances and awarded overtime pay to both grievants.
We concluded that the Arbitrator did not find, as required by the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, that the grievants had been affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action. We noted that the fact that the case was processed through the parties' expedited arbitration procedure did not relieve the Arbitrator of the obligation to satisfy the requirements of the Back Pay Act. Consequently, because the Arbitrator's award did not contain the findings necessary to sustain an award of backpay under the Back Pay Act, we set the award aside.
III. Request for Reconsideration
The Union asserts that there was an agreement between the Agency, the Union, and the Arbitrator, "made on the day of the [h]earing, that the Arbitrator would render a simple 'yes' or 'no' decision." Request for Reconsideration. The Union contends that the Agency was dissatisfied with the Arbitrator's decision and that the Agency repudiated that agreement. Therefore, the Union requests that we remand the case to the Arbitrator so that he can be given an opportunity to "reconvene with the parties to find out what went wrong" and "expand on his original decision . . . ." Id.
The Agency argues that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's decision. The Agency asserts that the Union's arguments are nothing more than disagreement with, and an attempt to relitigate, the merits of the decision. The Agency also contends that the Authority should deny the Union's request that the award be remanded to the Arbitrator because the Authority has consistently ruled that it will not remand awards that are deficient under the Back Pay Act.
V. 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 failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant reconsideration of our decision. Rather, the Union's request for reconsideration constitutes mere disagreement with our conclusions in 48 FLRA 221, and is an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. Further, with respect to the Union's request that we remand the award to the Arbitrator so that he can expand on his original award, we find that the Union has not demonstrated that remand of the deficient award is warranted in these circumstances. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's request for reconsideration. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 96 and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 47 FLRA 1246 (1993).
The Union's request for reconsideration is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)