United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Washington, D.C. (Agency) and National Air Traffic Controllers Association (Union)

63 FLRA No. 183

 

 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

_____

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 (Agency)

 

and

 

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION

(Union)     

 

0-AR-4048

(63 FLRA 492 (2009))

 

_____

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

August 14, 2009

 

_____

 

Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman and

Thomas M. Beck, Member

 
I.          Statement of the Case

 

This matter is before the Authority on the Agency’s motion for reconsideration of the Authority’s decision in United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 63 FLRA 492 (2009) (FAA).  The Union did not file an opposition to the Agency’s motion.

 

The Authority’s Regulations permit a party that can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision.  5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.  For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Agency fails to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  Accordingly, we deny the Agency’s motion for reconsideration.

 

 

II.        Decision in FAA

 

            In FAA, the Arbitrator awarded attorney fees for the services of a non-attorney, staff representative of the Union, and the Agency contended that the award was contrary to 5 C.F.R. § 550.807(f).*  63 FLRA at 492.  The Agency asserted that the staff representative did not qualify for attorney fees because she was not an attorney, law clerk, paralegal, or law student, as required by § 550.807(f).  The Agency also asserted that the Authority’s decision in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Information Resource Management, Atlanta, Georgia, 53 FLRA 1657 (1998) (FDIC) was distinguishable.  Id. at 492-93. 

 

We denied the exception, concluding that FDIC supported the award and that § 550.807(f) did not impose requirements that precluded an award of attorney fees for the services of the staff representative.  Id. at 494.  We reiterated the holding in FDIC that the governing standards for an award of attorney fees for non-attorney representatives do not exceed the requirements of the existence of an attorney-c