[ v48 p410 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
48 FLRA No. 39
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
REGIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICE
JEFFREY A. SAUL, AN INDIVIDUAL
(47 FLRA 1338 (1993))
(48 FLRA No. 20 (1993))
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND MODIFYING ORDER
August 31, 1993
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on the General Counsel's motion to clarify our decision in 47 FLRA 1338 (1993), request for reconsideration denied, 48 FLRA No. 20.(*)
For the following reasons, we grant the General Counsel's motion and we will modify, in part, our decision.
II. 47 FLRA 1338 and 48 FLRA No. 20
In 47 FLRA 1338, we concluded, as relevant here, that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to credit the Charging Party's Federal union experience in determining his qualifications for a position. To remedy the unfair labor practice we directed, among other things, that a notice be posted at certain of the Respondent's facilities and that the notice be signed by "the Commissioner." Id. at 1347. In 48 FLRA No. 20, the Authority denied the Respondent's request for reconsideration of the decision.
III. Motion for Reconsideration
The General Counsel requests that we modify our decision in 47 FLRA 1338 to require that the notice be signed by the Respondent's Regional Director instead of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration. The General Counsel notes that the Regional Director is the Respondent's highest-ranking official.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides that a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" may move for reconsideration of an Authority decision. We find that the General Counsel has established extraordinary circumstances in this case.
In an unfair labor practice case, the posting of a notice provides, for most unit employees, the only visible indication that a respondent recognizes and intends to fulfill its obligations under the Statute. The Authority has long held that the remedial purposes of a notice are best served by requiring the head of the activity responsible for the violation to sign the notice. See Department of Housing and Urban Development, San Francisco, California, 41 FLRA 480, 483 (1991). In this case, the unfair labor practice complaint was filed against the Department of Health and Human Services, Regional Personnel Office, Seattle Washington, and it is undisputed that the Regional Director is the highest-ranking official in that office. As there is no contention or other basis on which to conclude that the notice should be signed by an official other than the Regional Director, we will modify our Order in 47 FLRA 1338 accordingly.
The Order, at paragraph 2(c), in 47 FLRA 1338 is modified to substitute "Regional Director" for "the Commissioner."
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
*/ We construe the General Counsel's motion to clarify the decision as a motion for reconsideration.