49:0134(19)NG - - NAGE, Local R1-109 and VA Medical Center, Newington, CT - - 1994 FLRAdec NG - - v49 p134



[ v49 p134 ]
49:0134(19)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


49 FLRA No. 19

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R1-109

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

MEDICAL CENTER

NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT

(Agency)

0-NG-2188

_____

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

February 24, 1994

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on a request by the Union seeking reconsideration of the Authority's Order dismissing the Union's petition for review in the above-captioned case. The Agency filed an opposition to the request for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the Union's request for reconsideration is denied.

II. Background

On November 18, 1993, the Authority issued an order informing the Union that its petition for review did not comply with the Authority's Rules and Regulations and directing the Union to file with the Authority by December 1, 1993, "a statement of service . . . showing service of the petition on Mr. Richard Daniels, the principal Agency bargaining representative at the negotiations." The Order stated that "[f]ailure to comply . . . by December 1, 1993, may result in dismissal of the . . . petition for review."

The Union did not file the required statement of service with the Authority. Accordingly, on December 15, 1993, the Union's petition for review was dismissed.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union claims that it "properly served the principal [A]gency bargaining representative" and that the individual named in the Authority's order "never attended any negotiation session" and was not designated as the Agency's representative. Request at 1. In addition, the Union asserts that its petition for review should be reinstated because it "contacted [the Authority] by telephone, and was led to believe that the issue was resolved." Id.

The Agency argues that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances to justify its request for reconsideration.

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 a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established such extraordinary circumstances in this case.

It is undisputed that the Union made no filing with the Authority in response to the November 18 Order. As such, the Union did not comply with that Order. Moreover, although there is a record of telephone conversations between a Union representative and an employee in the Authority's Case Control Office,(*) that record confirms that the Union was directed in those conversations to put in writing its position that it previously had served the Agency's principal bargaining representative. The Union's claim that it was "led to believe that the issue was resolved[]" is ambiguous, unsupported, and provides no basis on which to conclude that the Union was relieved of its obligation under the Authority's Order of November 18.

The Union filed with the Authority neither the statement of service required by the Authority's Order nor any other statement explaining its position. Accordingly, the Union's petition for review was properly dism