United States, Department of the Air Force, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina (Agency) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-188 (Union)

[ v58 p169 ]

58 FLRA No. 41

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE
NORTH CAROLINA
(Agency)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R5-188
(Union)

0-AR-3545

_____

ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION

October 30, 2002

_____

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

      This matter is before the Authority on the Agency's request for reconsideration of the Authority's unpublished order denying an interlocutory motion in this case. The Union did not file an opposition to the motion.

      Under § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations, 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 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 where a moving party has established that the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusion of law, or factual finding. A moving party's disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Authority is 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).

      In this case, the arguments presented are the same arguments that the Agency previously made, and the Authority considered and rejected. We conclude that the Agency's request for reconsideration fails to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's decision. The Agency fails to establish that any of the situations that the Authority has identified as constituting extraordinary circumstances are present. The Agency's arguments are simply an attempt to relitigate the conclusions reached in the Authority's order. These arguments do not establish extraordinary circumstances within the m