United States, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 720, Council of Prison Locals, Council 33 (Union)

[ v58 p587 ]

58 FLRA No. 146

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY
TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA
(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 720
COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS,
COUNCIL 33
(Union)

0-AR-3487
(58 FLRA 327 (2003))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

June 9, 2003

_____

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 United States DOJ, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Ind., 58 FLRA 327 (2003) (DOJ), filed by the Union under § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition 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 a final Authority decision. 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, conclusions of law, or factual finding. See 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. See id. at 85. Attempts to relitigate conclusions reached by the Authority are insufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement. See AFGE, Local 1156, 57 FLRA 748, 748 (2002).

      The Union argues that the Authority erred in its conclusion of law and its remedial order. However, the Union does not cite any law that required the