[ v41 p1104 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
41 FLRA No. 87
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before us on a request for reconsideration of 41 FLRA 73 (1991) filed by the Agency under section 2424.17 of our Rules and Regulations. The Union did not file an opposition to the Agency's request. Because the Agency fails to establish extraordinary circumstances that would warrant reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the request.
II. The Decision in 41 FLRA 73
In 41 FLRA 73, we found that Proposals 1 through 4, which were offered in response to an Agency announcement of a proposed furlough for fiscal year 1991, were negotiable. We concluded that Proposal 5, which provided that employees could choose to be furloughed during fiscal year 1991 on specified dates during the year, was moot because it expressly concerned only the proposed fiscal year 1991 furlough. We rejected, as relevant here, the Agency's claim that Proposals 1-4 were moot because the proposed furlough to which the proposals were addressed never occurred. We concluded that the Union's assertion that Proposals 1-4 were not limited to the implementation of the Agency's proposed fiscal year 1991 furlough was consistent with the plain wording of the proposals and, therefore, Proposals 1-4 were not moot.
III. The Agency's Request for Reconsideration
The Agency objects only to the portion of our decision in 41 FLRA 73 finding that Proposals 1-4 are not moot. The Agency argues that the proposals were offered in the context of the proposed fiscal year 1991 furlough and that "negotiations with the [U]nion with respect to the furlough were intended solely to address the critical situation that threatened its employees at the time, not to prospective furlough policy." Request for Reconsideration at 4. The Agency contends further that it was "inappropriate" for us to determine the negotiability of Proposals 1-4 "because the situation surrounding a subsequently arising furlough may not concern the same or similar circumstances." Id. The Agency concludes that "[b]ecause the circumstances involving the [U]nion's furlough proposals are unique to the circumstances under which they arose," our decision that Proposals 1-4 are not moot should be reconsidered. Id. at 5.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
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. The Agency fails to establish "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2424.17.
The arguments provided by the Agency in support of its request for reconsideration constitute nothing more than disagreement with our decision in 41 FLRA 73 and an attempt to relitigate the merits of our conclusion that Proposals 1-4 are not moot. As such, these arguments do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of our decision, and we will deny the request. See, for example, U.S. Department of the Army, New Cumberland Army Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004, 40 FLRA 1032 (1991).
The Agency's request for reconsideration is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)