Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1534 (Union)
64 FLRA No. 154
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(64 FLRA 466 (2010))
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
May 28, 2010
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and
Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on the Union’s motion for reconsideration of an Authority decision dismissing the Agency’s exceptions without prejudice in Overseas Private Investment Corp., 64 FLRA 466 (2010) (OPIC). 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 final decision or order. For the reasons that follow, we grant the Union’s motion for reconsideration, but affirm our decision in OPIC dismissing the Agency’s exceptions without prejudice.
II. Decision in OPIC
In the underlying proceedings in OPIC, the Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance, but stated that his award was conditional upon a determination, by the Authority, that the grievant is a member of the bargaining unit. See OPIC, 64 FLRA at 466. The Agency filed exceptions challenging the merits of the award. The Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication issued an order (Order) directing the Agency to show cause why its exceptions should not be dismissed as interlocutory. See id. The Order stated that, because the Arbitrator’s award was conditional, it appeared to be interlocutory. See id. The Order further gave the Union leave to file a response (Response) to the Agency’s response to the Order. See Order at 3.
The Authority concluded that the Arbitrator’s award was not interlocutory because it fully resolved all of the issues before the Arbitrator. See OPIC, 64 FLRA at 467. However, the Authority also found that the Agency’s exceptions were not properly before the Authority because a decision on them would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. See id. Noting that the Agency continued to assert that the grievant was not a member of the bargaining unit, the Authority stated that a decision on the merits of the exceptions could become moot if subsequent proceedings determined that the grievant was not within the unit. The Authority, accordingly, dismissed the Agency’s exceptions without prejudice. See id. at 467-68. In reaching this conclusion, the Authority considered the Agency’s response to the Order; however, it did not consider the Union’s Response to the Agency’s Response. See id. at 467 n.2.
III. Motion for Reconsideration
The Union requests that the Authority “reopen” its decision in OPIC, or alternatively, reconsider its decision because the Authority did not consider the Union’s Response to the Agency’s response to the Order. Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 1 n.1. The Union contends that, because the Authority gave the Union permission to file its Response, the Authority should have considered the document. See id. at 1-2.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
Section 2429.17 of the Authority’s Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority order. The Authority has repeatedly recognized that a party seeking reconsideration under § 2429.17 bears the heavy burden