Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (Respondents) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1309 (Charging Party/Union)

[ v56 p279 ]

56 FLRA No. 38



(Charging Party/Union)

(56 FLRA 45 (2000))



April 28, 2000

Before the Authority: Donald S. Wasserman, Chairman; Phyllis N. Segal and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

      Respondent, U.S. Geological Survey (Survey), has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 56 FLRA 45 (2000). In that case, the Authority (Member Cabaniss concurring in part, dissenting in part), on remand from the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, concluded that the Respondent Survey committed unfair labor practices when it refused to bargain over a proposal requiring midterm bargaining.

      Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. However, on making such a request, a movant must state with particularity the extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Authority has described this as a "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 (1995).

      In this case, Respondent Survey contends that the Authority failed to follow the Supreme Court's mandate on remand and that this failure "constitute[s] 'extraordinary circumstances' warranting the Authority's reconsideration of its decision on remand." Motion for Reconsideration at 2. In this regard, Respondent Survey argues that the Authority did not independently analyze the specifics of the midterm bargaining obligation to determine whether, when, and where such bargaining is required, but merely "reaffirmed the same general conclusion it had previously adopted in [Internal Revenue Service, 29 FLRA 162 (1987)]." Id. at 6.

      Upon careful consideration, we conclude that Respondent Survey has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances warrant reconsideration of the Authority's decision in this case. [n1]  Accordingly, we deny the motion for reconsideration. See U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region West, Stockton, California and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1857, 48 FLRA 543, 545 (1993).

      The motion for reconsideration is denied.

Footnote # 1 for 56 FLRA No. 38

   The Respondents filed an additional submission dated April 10, 2000, requesting that the Authority take official notice of Department of the Navy, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Because the Respondents had ample time to raise arguments concerning the additional submission in previous filings in this case, we find it inappropriate to consider and address arguments belatedly raised in the additional submission. See U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Dams Project Office, Parker and Davis Dams and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640, 42 FLRA 76, 76 n* (1991).