National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 65 and U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (Agency)

[ v57 p3 ]

57 FLRA No. 3

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION, CHAPTER 65
(Chapter 65)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
(Agency)

0-AR-3255 Rec

_____

DECISION DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

March 12, 2001

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman; Donald S. Wasserman and Carol Waller Pope, Members.

I.     Statement of the Case

      This matter is before the Authority on Chapter 65's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's unpublished December 8, 2000, Order Dismissing Exceptions in NTEU, Chapter 65. The Agency has not 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. See United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 50 FLRA 84, 85 (1995) (Scott AFB). In Scott AFB, the Authority identified a limited number of situations in which extraordinary circumstances have been found to exist. These include situations were a moving party has established that the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusion of law, or factual finding. Attempts to relitigate conclusions reached by the Authority are insufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement. Id. at 86-87. See United States Dep't of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region West, Stockton, Cal., 48 FLRA 543, 545 (1993).

      Under § 2429.17, 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. See Scott AFB, 50 FLRA at 85. In this case, Chapter 65's arguments pertain to ongoing unfair labor practice cases, an appeal before the Department of Labor, purported violations of the NTEU Constitution, and the merits of the underlying grievance. These arguments do not fulfill the burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of § 2429.17. Chapter 65's other arguments also do not establish extraordinary circumstances.