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, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

33:0530(72)AR - - ACT, Michigan State Council and Michigan Air NG - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v33 p530



[ v33 p530 ]
33:0530(72)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


33 FLRA No. 72

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS

MICHIGAN STATE COUNCIL

and

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

0-AR-1520

(32 FLRA 1207)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

October 28, 1988

Before Chairman Calhoun and Member McKee.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before us on the Union's request for reconsideration of our September 16, 1988 decision. For the following reasons, we deny the request.

In our decision, we determined that the Arbitrator's award, which found that civilian technicians wearing the military uniform could not be required to observe military customs and courtesies prescribed by military regulation for the military uniform when off the military base or during their lunch periods, was deficient. We concluded that the award was contrary to section 7106(b)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute).

We found that the requirement that civilian technicians observe military customs and courtesies whenever they are wearing the military uniform must be considered as part of the uniform-wearing requirement. Therefore, we found that the requirement that civilian technicians observe military customs and courtesies when wearing the uniform constituted a method and means of performing work over which the Agency had not elected to bargain. Accordingly, we decided that by negating the Agency's requirement that military customs and courtesies be observed whenever civilian technicians are wearing the military uniform, the award conflicted with the Agency's right to determine the methods and means of performing its work and we set the award aside.

In view of this decision, we did not address the Agency's exception that the award was contrary to military regulations pertaining to military customs and courtesies when wearing the military uniform including Air Force Regulation (AFR) 30-1. Although we did not address this exception, we refused to exclude consideration of AFR 30-1 as requested by the Union. The Union had argued that because AFR 30-1 was not submitted to the Arbitrator, it should not be considered by the Authority. We allowed its submission because the issue submitted to and decided by the Arbitrator was whether the Agency could require civilian technicians to observe military customs and courtesies prescribed by military regulations when wearing the military uniform. Therefore, we concluded that the effect of AFR 30-1, which specifies the customs and courtesies that are required to be observed when wearing the military uniform, was a central issue in dispute.

II. The Union's Request

In its request for reconsideration, the Union maintains that AFR 30-1 should not have been considered by the Authority. The Union also argues that the Authority's decision that section 7106(b)(1) encompasses the requirement that civilian technicians observe military customs and courtesies when wearing the military uniform during "off-duty time" is "erroneous as a matter of law." Request for Reconsideration at 10.

III. Discussion

We conclude that the Union's request provides no basis on which to grant reconsideration. Section 2429.17 of our 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 request constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the merits of this case.

IV. Order

The request for reconsideration is denied.




FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)