49:0052(9)CA - - VA, Long Beach, CA and AFGE, Local 3943 - - 1994 FLRAdec CA - - v49 p52



[ v49 p52 ]
49:0052(9)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


49 FLRA No. 9

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 3943, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party)

SA-CA-20739

48 FLRA 970 (1993)

_____

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

February 4, 1994

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration filed by the Respondent under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Respondent claims that in the decision in 48 FLRA 970, the Authority failed to acknowledge that the Respondent had filed a brief with the Authority. Therefore, the Respondent requests the Authority to "correct the record" in the case. Motion for Reconsideration at 1.

For the following reason, we find that no extraordinary circumstances have been presented warranting reconsideration of our decision in 48 FLRA 970. Accordingly, we will deny the Respondent's motion.

II. Authority's Decision in 48 FLRA 970

In 48 FLRA 970, we dismissed a complaint alleging that the Respondent violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute by failing and refusing to furnish the Charging Party with requested information and by failing to respond to the Charging Party's request for the information. We indicated that the case was before the Authority based on a stipulated record that was transferred to the Authority by the Regional Director pursuant to section 2429.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. In our decision, we noted that the General Counsel had filed a brief with the Authority but that the Respondent had not done so.

III. Motion for Reconsideration

The Respondent now claims that it timely filed a brief with the Authority "but possibly due to the Authority's relocation of its offices occurring in March of 1993, such [b]rief was misdirected to [the] previous address and apparently did not reach the Authority." Motion for Reconsideration at 1. The Respondent adds that the Authority's previous mailing address was