Social Security Administration, Lansing, Michigan (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees (Union)
[ v58 p181 ]
58 FLRA No. 45
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
(58 FLRA No. 18 (2002))
ORDER DENYING MOTION
November 13, 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 of the Authority's decision in Social Sec. Admin., Lansing, Mich., 58 FLRA No. 18 (2002) (Member Pope dissenting) (SSA, Lansing) filed by the Union under § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's motion.
Section 2429.17 permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a final decision of the Authority. 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). These include situations where the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusions of law, or factual findings. See 50 FLRA at 85-87. The party seeking reconsideration of a final decision of the Authority has the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. See id. at 85. The Authority has uniformly held that mere disagreement with the conclusions reached by the Authority do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. See, e.g., United States Dep't of the Air Force, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., 58 FLRA 22 (2002) (Seymour Johnson AFB); Scott AFB, 50 FLRA at 86-87.
In this case, the Union asserts that the Authority misinterpreted the award and erroneously concluded that the award did not comport with the parties' collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the Union's motion fails to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's decision. The Union fails to establish that any of the situations that the Authority has identified as constituting extraordinary circumstances are present. In our view, the Union's assertions simply disagree with the conclusions of the