U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (Respondents) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1309 (Charging Party/Union)

[ v56 p279 ]

56 FLRA No. 38

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.
AND
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
RESTON, VIRGINIA
(Respondents)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1309
(Charging Party/Union)

WA-CA-30451-Rec
(56 FLRA 45 (2000))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

April 28, 2000

Before the Authority: Donald S. Wasserman, Chairman; Phyllis N. Segal and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

      Respondent, U.S. Geological Survey (Survey), has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 56 FLRA 45 (2000). In that case, the Authority (Member Cabaniss concurring in part, dissenting in part), on remand from the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, concluded that the Respondent Survey committed unfair labor practices when it refused to bargain over a proposal requiring midterm bargaining.

      Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. However, on making such a request, a movant must state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Authority has described this as a "heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action." U.S. Department of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 50 FLRA 84, 85 (1995).

      In this case, Respondent Survey contends that the Authority failed to follow the Supreme Court's mandate on remand and that this failure "constitute[s] 'extraordinary circumstances' warranting the Authority's reconsideration of its decision on remand." Motion for Reconsideration at 2. In this regard, Respondent Survey argues that the Authority did not independently analyze the specifics of the midterm bargaining obligation to determine whether, when, and where such bargaining is required, but merely "reaffirmed the same general conclusion it had previously adopted in [Internal Revenue Service, 29 FLRA 162 (1987)]." Id. at 6.

   &nbs