Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Petitioner/Labor Organization) and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 1276, AFL-CIO (Intervenor/Labor Organization)
[ v57 p567 ]
57 FLRA No. 100
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT
SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA
LOCAL 1276, AFL-CIO
(57 FLRA 274 (2001))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
October 3, 2001
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members [n1]
Intervenor Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 1276, AFL-CIO filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in Def. Logistics Agency, Def. Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, Cal., 57 FLRA 274 (2001) denying its application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order denying its objections to an election. Neither the Petitioner nor the Activity filed an opposition to the Intervenor's motion.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. 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." United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 50 FLRA 84, 85 (1995).
In this case, the Intervenor contends that the Authority: (1) made a factual error when it concluded that the Intervenor could have raised its pre-election hearing claims prior to the Regional Director's Decision; (2) erred by refusing to address the Regional Director's failure to conduct a pre-election hearing; (3) erred by applying the same erroneous legal standard as the Regional Director in rejecting the Intervenor's pre-election claims; and (4) erred by affirming the Regional Director's determination to not void the election agreement.
Upon careful consideration of the motion and Authority precedent, we conclude that the Intervenor has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances warrant reconsideration of the Authority's decision in this case. [n2] Accordingly, we deny the motion for reconsideration.
Footnote # 1 for 57 FLRA No. 100
Footnote # 2 for 57 FLRA No. 100
We note that the Intervenor has failed to demonstrate that it did not have an opportunity to raise its claims regarding a pre-election hearing to the Regional Director, either prior to or in its objections to the election. Therefore, the Authority appropriately refused to consider the claims relating to this issue, pursuant to § 2429.5 of the Authority's Regulations.