[ v49 p52 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
49 FLRA No. 9
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 3943, AFL-CIO
48 FLRA 970 (1993)
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
February 4, 1994
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration filed by the Respondent under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Respondent claims that in the decision in 48 FLRA 970, the Authority failed to acknowledge that the Respondent had filed a brief with the Authority. Therefore, the Respondent requests the Authority to "correct the record" in the case. Motion for Reconsideration at 1.
For the following reason, we find that no extraordinary circumstances have been presented warranting reconsideration of our decision in 48 FLRA 970. Accordingly, we will deny the Respondent's motion.
II. Authority's Decision in 48 FLRA 970
In 48 FLRA 970, we dismissed a complaint alleging that the Respondent violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute by failing and refusing to furnish the Charging Party with requested information and by failing to respond to the Charging Party's request for the information. We indicated that the case was before the Authority based on a stipulated record that was transferred to the Authority by the Regional Director pursuant to section 2429.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. In our decision, we noted that the General Counsel had filed a brief with the Authority but that the Respondent had not done so.
III. Motion for Reconsideration
The Respondent now claims that it timely filed a brief with the Authority "but possibly due to the Authority's relocation of its offices occurring in March of 1993, such [b]rief was misdirected to [the] previous address and apparently did not reach the Authority." Motion for Reconsideration at 1. The Respondent adds that the Authority's previous mailing address was contained in the complaint that was sent to the Respondent, that the Respondent was not directly notified of a change in the Authority's address, and, absent such notification, the Respondent assumed that the Authority's address would remain unchanged throughout the proceeding. The Respondent also states that all parties listed on the certificate of service attached to its brief, incorporated in its motion for reconsideration, received the brief in a timely manner. Therefore, the Respondent requests the Authority to "correct the record" in 48 FLRA 970. Id.
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 Respondent has failed to establish extraordinary circumstances in this case.
Section 2429.1 of our Rules and Regulations, under which this unfair labor practice case was transferred to the Authority for decision, states that "[b]riefs in the case must be filed with the Authority within thirty (30) days from the date of the Regional Director's order transferring the case to the Authority." Section 2429.24 further provides that all documents that are required to be filed with the Authority must be filed with the Authority's Director of Case Management. A review of the certificate of service attached to the Respondent's brief indicates that the brief was served on the Authority's Regional Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge. The brief was not separately served on the Authority as required by our Rules and Regulations, and, in fact, the Authority never received a copy of the brief. The Authority has previously stated that parties are responsible for being knowledgeable of statutory and regulatory filing requirements. See, for example, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Waco, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1822, 43 FLRA 1149, 1150 (1992) (exceptions to arbitration award that were filed with regional office, rather than Authority, dismissed as untimely filed despite fact that regional office sent exceptions to Authority). Consequently, the Authority correctly stated in 48 FLRA 970 that the Respondent had not filed a brief with the Authority and there is no basis on which to grant the Respondent's motion.
The Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)