50:0531(71)AR - - AFGE, Local 2199 and VA Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT - - 1995 FLRAdec AR - - v50 p531
[ v50 p531 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
50 FLRA No. 71
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
(50 FLRA 257 (1995))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
June 22, 1995
Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz and Pamela Talkin, Members.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on the Union's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 50 FLRA 257 (1995). The Agency did not file an opposition to the motion.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion.
II. Decision in 50 FLRA 257
In 50 FLRA 257, the Authority found no basis on which to conclude that an arbitrator's award, denying the grievance of an employee who challenged his performance appraisal, was deficient under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. More specifically, the Authority concluded that the Union failed to establish that the award was contrary to 5 C.F.R. § 430.205(e), which relates to the conduct and content of progress reviews. The Authority found that the regulation does not describe the degree of specificity that a supervisor must use to discuss an employee's performance and does not state that a supervisor must address separately each performance element. The Authority determined that the Agency's conduct with respect to the mid-year progress review was not inconsistent with the regulatory requirements.
III. Motion for Reconsideration
The Union contends that extraordinary circumstances warrant reconsideration of the Authority's decision for three reasons. First, the Union argues that the Authority's interpretation of 5 C.F.R. § 430.205(e) is contrary to its plain meaning. Second, the Union claims that the Authority offered no support for its interpretation of the regulation. Third, the Union asserts that absent a "minimum, uniform application of [the] regulation, a host of conflicting and inconsistent results are inevitable." Motion for Reconsideration at 3.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations, a party seeking reconsideration after the Authority has issued a final decision or order bears the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. In U.S. Department of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 50 FLRA 84 (1995) (Scott Air Force Base), we identified a limited number of situations in which extraordinary circumstances have been found to exist. We added that a moving party's disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Authority in a case is insufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement. We find no extraordinary circumstances in this case.
The Union's arguments are predicated on its view that 5 C.F.R. § 430.205(e) must be interpreted in a particular