At this time FLRA remains fully operational. Effective Friday July 31, 2020, the agency now extends the prohibition on in-person filings indefinitely.  

See details: here.

FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

31:1292(119)AR - Lettterman Army Medical Center and Independent Letterman Hospital Workers' Union -- 1988 FLRAdec AR



[ v31 p1277 ]
31:1277(116)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 31 FLRA NO. 119

LETTERMAN ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
NUTRITION CARE DIRECTORATE

                   Activity

      and

INDEPENDENT LETTERMAN HOSPITAL
WORKERS' UNION

                   Union

                                             Case No. 0-AR-1392

            ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

     This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by
the Union seeking reconsideration of the Authority's decision of
November 30, 1987, which denied its exceptions.

     In our decision, we concluded that grievances concerning the
separation of a veteran readjustment appointee during the initial
year of employment are precluded from coverage by negotiated
grievance procedures. Accordingly, we upheld the Arbitrator's
finding that because of the grievant's probationary status, the
dispute concerning the separation of the grievant during the
first year of his readjustment appointment was not grievable or
arbitrable.

     In its request for reconsideration, the Union argues that
the Arbitrator addressed the wrong issue. The Union contends that
the issue was not the separation of the grievant from the Federal
Service, but a grievance concerning the evidence and testimony
given by Lieutenant Colonel Lelonek on July 9, 1986. The Union
contends that the testimony of Lelonek was false and that when
the Commanding General failed to take the appropriate action, it
filed a grievance. The Union also contends that the grievant was
entitled to be converted to competitive status prior to his
discharge and, therefore, was not a probationary employee.

     Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances"
to move for reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. Here,
however, the Union has not established "extraordinary
circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the
arguments presented by the Union in support of its notion
constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's
decision and also constitute an attempt to relitigate the merits
of this case.

     Accordingly, the Union's request for reconsideration is
denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1988.

                         Jerry L. Calhoun,        Chairman

                         Jean McKee,                Member

                         FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY