46:0878(77)AR - - HUD, Washington, DC and AFGE Local 476 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v46 p878



[ v46 p878 ]
46:0878(77)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


46 FLRA No. 77

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 476

(Union)

0-AR-2335

(45 FLRA 1280 (1992))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

December 4, 1992

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before us on a motion filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations seeking reconsideration of our order in 45 FLRA 1280 dismissing the Union's exceptions to an arbitration award because the exceptions were untimely filed. The Agency did not file an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has not established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority's Order. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.

II. The Authority's Order in 45 FLRA 1280

In 45 FLRA 1280, we determined that the Union's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award were untimely filed. In so ruling, the Authority noted that because the Arbitrator's award was served on the parties by mail on July 21, 1992, any exception to the award had to be either postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or delivered in person to the Authority no later than August 24, 1992, in order to be timely filed. Because the Union's exceptions were postmarked August 25, 1992, the Authority ruled that the exceptions were not filed within the prescribed time limit and dismissed the exceptions.

III. Motion for Reconsideration

The Union contends that the Authority's order in 45 FLRA 1280 "creates an inconsistent ruling on the matter of the computation of the prescribed time limits for filing exceptions to arbitration awards." Motion at 1. The Union asserts that the Authority has sometimes calculated the time period for the filing of exceptions "exclud[ing] the date of issuance of the award" and at other times the Authority "counts the date of issuance of the award . . . ." Id. at 2 (citing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Waco, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1822, 43 FLRA 1149 (1992) (VAMC); Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 916, 32 FLRA 165, 167 (1988)). The Union argues that in calculating the appropriate time limit for filing exceptions to the award in this case, the Authority's order in 45 FLRA 1280 "counts the date of issuance of the award contrary to the Authority's ruling in [VAMC.]" Id. The Union requests the Authority to reconsider its order in 45 FLRA 1280 and to "calculat[e] the time limits [in this case] in accordance with [VAMC]." Brief in Support of Motion at 3.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

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. We conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section 2429.17 to warrant reconsideration of the Authority's order dismissing the Union's exceptions.

As noted in 45 FLRA 1280, the time limit for filing exceptions to an arbitration award is 30 days beginning on the date the award is served on the filing party. 5 C.F.R. § 2425.1(b). The date of service is the date the arbitration award is deposited in the U.S. mail or is delivered in person. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27(d); see VAMC, 43 FLRA at 1149. If the award is served by mail, 5 days are added to the period for filing exceptions to the award. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.22. Further, the last day of the period so computed is to be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal legal holiday, in which case the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal legal holiday. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.21(a). The time limit may not be extended or waived by the Authority. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d).

In the present case, the 30-day time period for filing exceptions to the Arbitrator's award began on July 21, 1992, and expired on Wednesday, August 19, 1992. Because the award was served by mail, 5 additional days were added to the filing period and the time period for filing exceptions was advanced to Monday, August 24, 1992. Therefore, in order to be timely, the Union's exceptions had to be filed with the Authority no later than August 24, 1992.

The Union's reliance on the Authority's order in VAMC to support its request for reconsideration is misplaced. In VAMC the date of service of the arbitration award was November 1, 1991. Therefore, the 30-day time period for filing exceptions to that award began on November 1, 1991, and expired on November 30, 1991. Because the award was served by mail, 5 days were added to the 30-day time period for filing exceptions. However, because the last day of the 30-day period, November 30, 1991, was a Saturday, the period was advanced until the next workday, Monday, December 2, 1991, prior to adding the additional 5 days. See 5 C.F.R. § 2429.21; United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, New York, 25 FLRA 102 (1986). Therefore, the time period was advanced to December 7, 1991. However, because December 7, 1991, was a Saturday, the time limit for filing exceptions was again advanced to the end of the next workday, Monday, December 9, 1991. Therefore, the Authority determined that any exception to the arbitrator's award in VAMC had to be filed no later than December 9, 1991.

In VAMC, unlike in the instant case, the last day of the 30-day time period and the last day of the 5-day time period for service by mail were nonworkdays. Accordingly, consistent with the Authority's Rules and Regulations and Authority precedent and as described above, the time periods in VAMC were advanced to the next workday. Consequently, there is no merit to the Union's contention that the Authorit