United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, Marine Operations Center, Norfolk, Virginia (Agency) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 80 (Union)
[ v57 p723 ]
57 FLRA No. 152
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
OFFICE OF MARINE AND AVIATION
OPERATIONS, MARINE OPERATIONS CENTER
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
(55 FLRA 816 (1999))
(55 FLRA 1107 (1999))
(57 FLRA 559 (2001))
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
April 2, 2002
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members [n1]
This matter is before the Authority on motions for reconsideration of the Authority's Decision in United States Dep't of Commerce, Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, Marine Operations Ctr., Norfolk, Va., 57 FLRA 559 (2001) filed by both the Agency and the Union under part 2429 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed a response to the Union'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. See United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott AFB, 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 where 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 Def., Def. Logistics Agency, Def. Distrib. Region West, Stockton, Cal., 48 FLRA 543, 545 (1993) (Def. Logistics Agency).
In this case, the Agency and the Union contend that the Authority incorrectly interpreted statute, law and regulation. These contentions are attempts to relitigate the conclusions reached by the Authority in 57 FLRA 559. The Union also argues that the grievants' request for backpay was timely. This argument is a request for the Authority to reconsider part of its original 1999 decision in 55 FLRA 816, thereby making the reconsideration request untimely. Accordingly, the motions for reconsideration are insufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement. See Def. Logistics Agency, 48 FLRA at 545.
The Agency's and the Union's motions for reconsideration are denied.
Footnote # 1 for 57 FLRA No. 152