American Federation of Government Employees, Council 170, Local 2128 (Union) and United States, Department of Defense, Defense Contract Management Agency, District West, Hurst, Texas (Agency)
[ v59 p1 ]
59 FLRA No. 1
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
COUNCIL 170, LOCAL 2128
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(58 FLRA 316 (2003))
ORDER DENYING MOTION
August 5, 2003
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
This matter is before the Authority on the Union's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 58 FLRA 316 (2003). 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 an 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, conclusion of law, or factual finding. See id. at 85-87. The party seeking reconsideration of a decision of the Authority has a 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., AFGE Local 1617, 58 FLRA 183, 183 (2002).
In this case, the Union alleges that the Authority erred in its interpretation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. We conclude that the Union fails to meet the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify reconsideration of 58 FLRA 316. The Union fails to establish that any of the situations identified as constituting extraordinary circumstances are present. Instead, the Union's allegations simply disagree with the conclusions of the Authority in 58 FLRA 316 and provide no basis for granting reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion. See 58 FLRA at 183.
Footnote * for 59 FLRA No. 1 - Authority's Decision
As 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17 does not provide for the filing of an opposition to a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2429.26, Chairman Cabaniss would find that a party must seek leave to file an opposition before the Authority can consider the document under the Authority's discretionary review provision.