Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

24:1019(98)CA NTEU VS TREASURY, IRS, WICHITA DISTRICT -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v24 p1019 ]
24:1019(98)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


24 FLRA NO. 98

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WICHITA DISTRICT, WICHITA, KANSAS

                   Respondent

         and

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

                    Charging Party

Case No. 7-CA-30514
23 FLRA No. 89

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Authority on a request for reconsideration filed by the Respondent on December 12, 1986, seeking reconsideration of the above-entitled Authority's Decision and Order on Remand of October 22, 1986. For the reason set forth below, the Respondent's motion must be dismissed.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, provides in pertinent part:

2429.17 Reconsideration.

After a final decision or order of the Authority has been issued, a party to the proceeding before the Authority who can establish in its moving papers extraordinary circumstances for so doing, may move for reconsideration of such final decision or order. The motion shall be filed within ten (10) days after service of the Authority's decision or order....

The Authority's Decision and Order on Remand was dated and served on the Respondent by mail on October 22, 1986. Therefore, under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, and sections 2429.21 and 2429.22, which also are applicable to computation of the time limit here involved, the Respondent's motion for reconsideration was due in the national [ v24 p1019 ] office of the Authority before the close of business on November 10, 1986. Since, as indicated above, the Respondent's motion was not filed until December 12, 1986, it is clearly untimely and must be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, and apart from other considerations, the Respondent's motion for reconsideration is hereby dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., December 31, 1986.

Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management