American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1156 and Laborers' International Union, Local 1170 (Unions) and United States Department of the Navy, Naval Inventory Control Point and Defense Logistics Agency, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (Agencies)

[ v57 p748 ]

57 FLRA No. 161

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1156
AND
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 1170
(Unions)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL INVENTORY CONTROL POINT
AND
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
(Agencies)

0-AR-3294
(57 FLRA 602 (2001))

_____

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

April 19, 2002

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration and request for a stay of the Authority's decision in 57 FLRA 602 (2001) filed by the Agencies under § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The Unions did not file an opposition to the Agencies' motion.

      Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a final Authority decision. See United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Sup't Group, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 50 FLRA 84, 85 (1995) (Scott Air Force Base). In Scott Air Force Base, 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.

      A party seeking reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority has the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. In this case, the Agencies assert that the Authority erred in interpreting the Back Pay Act. Upon careful consideration of the Agencies' motion and Authority precedent, we conclude that the Agencies have not raised any new arguments in their motion that w