United States Information Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Washington, D.C. (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1812 (Union)
[ v58 p143 ]
58 FLRA No. 26
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1812
(57 FLRA 261 (2001))
(57 FLRA 927 (2002))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
October 8, 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 by the Agency to our decision in United States Information Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Washington, D.C., 57 FLRA 927 (2002) (Information Agency II) on exceptions from our remand to Arbitrator Leroy D. Clark in United States Information Agency, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Washington, D.C., 57 FLRA 261 (2001) (Information Agency I). The motion was filed pursuant to § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency also seeks a stay of the Authority's Order in the above matter pending final disposition of this motion. The Union did not file a response.
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 contends that the Authority incorrectly interpreted law and made errors of fact. However, upon review of the Agency's contentions, we find that