Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Region II, Buffalo Office of Hearings and Appeals, Buffalo, New York (Respondent) and Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)
[ v59 p442 ]
59 FLRA No. 67
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
REGION II, BUFFALO OFFICE OF HEARINGS
AND APPEALS, BUFFALO, NEW YORK
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGES, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
(58 FLRA 722 (2003))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
November 10, 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 Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Region II, Buffalo Office of Hearings and Appeals, Buffalo, N.Y., 58 FLRA 722 (2003) (Chairman Cabaniss dissenting in part) (SSA, Buffalo). The Agency did not file 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 (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.
We conclude that the Union's contentions fail to meet the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant reconsideration of the scope of the remedial order in SSA, Buffalo. Moreover, to the extent that the Union is concerned that the Respondent will continue to disregard the Authority's order, that matter is more appropriately raised and considered during compliance proceedings in accordance with § 2423.41(e) of the Authority's Regulations. See e.g., Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, Cal., 47 FLRA 454, 457 (Authority denied motion to reconsider its remedial order as questions concerning the applicability of the remedial order are appropriate for resolution in compliance proceedings). As such, the Union's motion provides no basis for granting reconsideration of the Authority's decision.
Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion.