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, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

United States Department of the Air Force, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina (Agency) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-188 (Union)

[ v58 p22 ]

58 FLRA No. 7

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE
NORTH CAROLINA
(Agency)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R5-188
(Union)

0-AR-3425
(57 FLRA 847 (2002))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

August 30, 2002

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 57 FLRA 847 (2002) (Member Pope dissenting) filed by the Union under § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's motion.

      Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a final decision of the Authority. See United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 50 FLRA 84, 85 (1995) (Scott AFB). In Scott AFB, the Authority identified a limited number of situations in which extraordinary circumstances have been found to exist. These include situations where the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusions of law, or factual findings. See 50 FLRA at 85-87. The party seeking reconsideration of a final decision of the Authority has the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. See id. at 85. The Authority has uniformly held that mere disagreement with the conclusions reached by the Authority do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. See AFGE Local 1156, 57 FLRA 748, 748 (2002); Scott AFB, 50 FLRA at 86-87.

      In this case, the Union asserts that "[t]he Authority erred in finding that the Union was advancing a claim by the first arbitrator." Motion at 2. We conclude that the Union's motion fails to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's decision. The Union fails to establish that any of the situations that the Authority has identified as constituting extraordinary circumstances are present. In our view, the Union's assertion of error simply disagrees with the conclusions of the Authority in 57 FLRA 847 and provides no basis for granting reconsideration. [n*]  Accordingly, we deny the motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., AFGE Local 1156, 57 FLRA at 748; AFGE Local 2501, 57 FLRA 278, 279 (2001).



Footnote # * for 58 FLRA No. 7

   Member Pope reaffirms her dissent in 57 FLRA 847. However, in light of the Authority's decision in that case, Member Pope joins in denying the Union's request for reconsideration.