[ v41 p1407 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
41 FLRA No. 107
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 535 (1991) filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. Because the Union fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the request.
II. The Decision in 41 FLRA 535
In 41 FLRA 535, we rejected Union contentions that an arbitrator's award denying a grievance over a 5-day suspension was deficient because: (1) the Arbitrator was biased; (2) the award was based on nonfacts; (3) the Arbitrator failed to conduct a fair hearing; and (4) the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by failing to address the issues presented to him. We found, as relevant here, that the Union had not established that the Arbitrator was biased or that he refused to consider pertinent and material evidence. We also held that the Union did not demonstrate that alleged misstatements by the Arbitrator were central facts underlying the award or that the award was unresponsive to and/or not properly confined to the issues as stipulated by the parties.
III. The Union's Request for Reconsideration
The Union maintains that the Authority's decision incorporated a number of "misinterpretations and misunderstandings" from the Arbitrator's award. Request for Reconsideration at 1. The Union also presents a number of facts and evidence to support its assertion that the Arbitrator's award is deficient.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17 to warrant reconsideration of our decision of 41 FLRA 535.
The arguments presented by the Union in support of its request for reconsideration constitute nothing more than disagreement with our decision in 41 FLRA 535 and are an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. 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 Union's request for reconsideration is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)