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.         

25:0659(53)CA - VA Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ and AFGE Local 2382 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v25 p659 ]
25:0659(53)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 53
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 
 MEDICAL CENTER, 
 PHOENIX, ARIZONA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL 2382, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-50153
                                               24 FLRA No. 75
 
                 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on a motion field by the Union,
 the Charging Party, for reconsideration of the Authority's decision and
 order in Veterans Administration Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 24
 FLRA no. 75 (1986).  In its motion the Union contends reconsideration is
 warranted because the Authority's decision adopts the Judge's failure to
 restore the status quo despite the Judge's ruling that a past practice
 had been established.
 
    Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides
 that "a party . . . who can establish . . . extraordinary circumstances
 . . . may move for reconsideration of" a final decision and order of the
 Authority.  We conclude that the Union fails to establish extraordinary
 circumstances within the meaning of the Rules.  In our decision, we
 adopted the Judge's finding that the practice established by the Union
 did not go beyond a particular agreement made by management as to one
 specific employee and the Judge's rationale for denying on that basis a
 status quo ante order.  Thus, the Union's motion raises no issues not
 previously raised before and considered by the Authority.  Instead, the
 motion only constitutes a disagreement with the merits of the
 Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the matter.
 
    Accordingly, the Union's motion for reconsideration is denied.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., February 12, 1987.
 
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY