50:0575(79)RO - - HUD, Region IX, San Francisco, CA and NFFE Local 1450 and AFGE and AFGE Local 2403 - - 1995 FLRAdec RP - - v50 p575



[ v50 p575 ]
50:0575(79)RO
The decision of the Authority follows:


50 FLRA No. 79

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

REGION IX

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

(Activity)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1450

(Petitioner/Labor Organization)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AFL-CIO

(Exclusive Representative)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2403, AFL-CIO

(Labor Organization)

SF-RO-40054

(50 FLRA 334 (1995))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

June 30, 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 a motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 50 FLRA 334 (1995) filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2403, AFL-CIO (Local 2403). The Activity filed 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 Local 2403 has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, we deny Local 2403's motion.

II. Decision in 50 FLRA 334

In 50 FLRA 334, the Authority denied Local 2403's application for review of the Regional Director's (RD) decision and order dismissing its objection to the conduct of a representation election. The Authority found that Local 2403 did not establish compelling reasons within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Regulations for granting review of the RD's decision. The Authority found that Local 2403 did not qualify as an incumbent intervenor under section 2422.5 of the Authority's Regulations and was not acting as AFGE National's agent in filing the objections to the election.

III. Motion for Reconsideration

Local 2403 argues that the Authority's conclusion that Local 2403 was not acting as AFGE's agent "is clearly erroneous and establishes an overly restrictive policy with respect to the creation of agency relationships between a national union and its affiliated locals." Motion for Reconsideration at 3. Local 2403 concedes that it relied on its "asserted incumbency" but also maintains that "it argued, in the alternative, that it was acting as an agent of AFGE[.]" Id. at 5.

IV. Opposition

The Activity contends that the Local 2403's motion for reconsideration should be dismissed because it is untimely and "reveals no extraordinary circumstances." Opposition at 3.

V. Analysis and Conclusions

The time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration of an Authority's decision is 10 days after the date the decision is served on the filing party. Under 5 C.F.R. §§ 2429.17, 2429.21(b) and 2429.22, the due date for a request for reconsideration was May 15, 1995. Therefore, Local 2403's motion for reconsideration was timely filed on May 15, 1995.

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