[ v52 p561 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
52 FLRA No. 52
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
SPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION (SATCO)
AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER (AFFTC)
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
(52 FLRA 339 (1996))
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
November 4, 1996
Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz and Donald S. Wasserman, Members.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order in 52 FLRA 339 (1996). The General Counsel did not file an opposition to the motion.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Respondent has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist and we deny the Respondent's motion.
II. Decision in 52 FLRA 339
In 52 FLRA 339, the Authority concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(b)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by insisting to impasse on the tape recording of the parties' collective bargaining negotiations. In reaching its decision, the Authority adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge.
III. Motion for Reconsideration
In its motion, the Respondent asserts that the Authority never addressed the issue presented in its exceptions to the Judge's decision: "[C]an a party to negotiations under [the Statute] unilaterally create and maintain an accurate record of . . . negotiations by use of a tape recorder?" Motion for Reconsideration at 2. The Respondent contends that the Authority and the Judge "ignored the real issue and [its] consequences." Id. at 1.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations, a party seeking reconsideration after the Authority has issued a final decision or order bears the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 50 FLRA 84, 85-87 (1995) (Scott Air Force Base). In Scott Air Force Base, the Authority identified a limited number of situations in which extraordinary circumstances have been found to exist. These include situations where a moving party has established that: (1) an intervening court decision or change in the law affected dispositive issues; (2) evidence, information or issues crucial to the decision had not been presented to the Authority; and (3) the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusion of law, or factual finding. Extraordinary circumstances have also been found by the Authority where the moving party has not been given an opportunity to address an issue raised sua sponte by the Authority in its decision. Id. at 87 (footnote omitted).
In this case, the Respondent's assertion that the Authority did not address the issue presented in its exceptions to the Judge's decision does not establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary to warrant reconsideration. Rather, the Respondent's arguments are the same as those we considered in 52 FLRA 339. Accordingly, we deny the Respondent's motion for reconsideration.
The Respondent's motion for reconsideration is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)