Social Security Administration, New York Regional Office and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3369 (Authority decision, September 25, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's renewed request to waive an expired deadline and reconsider an earlier arbitration decision. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), an order involving an arbitral award is generally excluded from judicial review unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 3369 sought to reopen an Authority decision involving the Social Security Administration's New York regional office. Its first reconsideration request was late, and it sought a waiver of the deadline. In a renewed request, the union said it had received the decision after a mail delay. The Authority found that the union still could have mailed a timely request the next day but waited two more days. It found no extraordinary circumstances to waive the deadline and denied reconsideration.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration and deadline waiver under the Authority's rules.
• Outcome: Renewed waiver and reconsideration request denied.
• Key point: The cited mail delay did not excuse filing after the remaining timely mailing opportunity.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p39 ]

29:0039(3)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 3

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE

Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3369, AFL-CIO

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1258
(27 FLRA No. 6)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND WAIVER OF EXPIRED TIME LIMIT

This case is before the Authority on a motion filed by the Union on July 22, 1987. In its motion, the Union requests the Authority to reconsider the denial of the Union's motion of May 29, 1987, which sought reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order in 27 FLRA No. 6 (May 12, 1987). For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion.

The Director of Case Management, acting for the Authority, dismissed the Union's May 29th motion on the basis that the motion was untimely. In its May 29th motion, the Union recognized that its motion was untimely, and sought a waiver of the expired time limit on the basis that the Authority's decision contained false and inaccurate statements and misrepresented the facts. It was found that these assertions essentially constituted nothing more than disagreement with the merits of the Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the matter, and did not constitute the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary under section 2429.23(b) of the Authority's regulations to waive expired time limits. Accordingly, the Union's May 29th motion for waiver of expired time limit and reconsideration of the Authority's decision was denied.

In its July 22nd motion, the Union again requests that we waive the expired time limit. In support of this motion, ] the Union asserts that it did not receive the Authority's decision in 27 FLRA No. 6 until May 26th. The Union also states that it did not receive a copy of the decision denying its first request for reconsideration until after it filed the instant motion. The Union argues that the delay in receipt of the Authority's original decision constitutes good cause for waiver of the time limit because the Union acted diligently in filing the May 29th request for reconsideration once it received a copy of the Authority's decision. The Union asserts, further, that in New York City (where the Union offices are located) extended delays in mail delivery are not uncommon.

While we recognize that delayed mail delivery may present problems for a party meeting the filing requirement and such problems may, in appropriate circumstances, provide "extraordinary circumstances" under section 2429.23(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for waiving an expired time limit, such circumstances are not present here. In this regard, ordinary delays in mail delivery generally do not provide "extraordinary circumstances" for waiving an expired time limit. See, for example, The Panama Canal Commission and Maritime Metal Trades Council, AFL - CIO, 21 FLRA No. 38 (1986). In this case, the Union states that it received the Authority's decision in 27 FLRA No. 6 on May 26, 1987. While the Union could have filed a timely request for reconsideration had it acted to mail its request by May 27, 1987, the Union did not act until May 29, 1987.

Accordingly, as the Union's request for reconsideration of our Decision and Order of May 12, 1987 does not present extraordinary circumstances warranting waiver of the time limit for filing such request, it must be denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., September 25, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY