International Association of Firefighters, Local F-25 (Union) and United States Department of the Navy, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Fire and Emergency Services (Agency) 

64 FLRA No. 182     

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS

LOCAL F-25

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY REGION MID-ATLANTIC

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

(Agency)

0-AR-4622

(64 FLRA 867 (2010))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

June 29, 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 the Authority’s decision in International Association of Firefighters, Local F-25, 64 FLRA 867 (2010) (Firefighters). 

            The Authority’s Regulations permit a party to request reconsideration of an Authority decision where it can establish extraordinary circumstances.  5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.  For the reasons that follow, we find that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority’s decision.  Therefore, we deny the Union’s motion.

II.        Background

            In Firefighters, as relevant here, the parties disputed whether the grievant was the Attendant-in-Charge (AIC) and, thus, responsible for properly completing a Pre-Hospital Patient Care Report (PPCR).  Award at 12-13.  The Union argued to the Arbitrator that the grievant transferred his AIC function to another individual and, therefore, the Agency should not have suspended the grievant for failing to correctly complete the PPCR.  Id. at 21.  The Arbitrator rejected this argument and found, among other things, that the grievant was the AIC at the pertinent time and was correctly charged with submitting an incomplete PPCR.  Id. at 23.  In a decision on exceptions filed by the Union, as relevant here, the Authority denied the Union’s nonfact exception that the award was based upon the Arbitrator’s erroneous factual finding that the grievant was the AIC.  Firefighters, 64 FLRA at 867.

III.       Union’s Position