Social Security Administration, Pittsburg, Kansas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1336 (Authority decision, May 29, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's request to reconsider its earlier denial of arbitration exceptions. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

The union sought reconsideration after the Authority denied its exceptions to an arbitrator's award, partly as untimely. It argued that the denial was erroneous and too brief to satisfy due process and statutory requirements. The Authority found that the union was trying to relitigate the decision and that the brief explanation did not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration. It denied the request.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration of arbitration exceptions under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17 and 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's reconsideration request denied; earlier denial remains in effect.
• Key point: Disagreement with a brief denial of arbitration exceptions did not warrant reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p154 ]

27:0154(29)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 29

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
PITTSBURG, KANSAS
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1336
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1312

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by the Union seeking reconsideration of the Authority's decision of March 27, 1987, denying the Union's exceptions.

We concluded in that decision that the Union failed to establish in its exceptions that the Arbitrator's award was deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). We also dismissed the exceptions as untimely to the extent that they challenged an earlier award of the Arbitrator. In its request, the Union essentially argues that reconsideration is warranted on two grounds. First, it argues that the Authority's decision is erroneous. Second, the Union argues that the Authority's brief decision denied the Union due process, violated the Administrative Procedures Act because the decision failed to provide a brief statement of the grounds for denial, and contravened the Statute because the decision failed to resolve the exceptions.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to move for reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Union fails to establish "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17.

The Union's argument that the Authority's decision is erroneous constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the decision and an attempt to relitigate this matter. This argument therefore provides no basis for reconsidering the decision. As to the Union's arguments concerning the brevity of the denial of its exceptions, the Authority has previously considered and rejected similar arguments. For example, the agency in Naval Legal Service Office, San Diego, California and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3723, Case No. 0-AR-868, sought reconsideration of the Authority's decision which briefly concluded that the exception failed to establish that the award was deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. The agency argued that the Authority failed to state the reason for the denial of the exception and that this failure constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Authority denied the agency's motion. Naval Legal Service Office, Case No. 0-AR-868 (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, June 26, 1985). The Authority found that the agency's arguments amounted to nothing more than disagreement with the merits of the decision that the agency had failed to establish that the award was in any manner deficient under section 7122(a).

We similarly conclude in this case that the Union's arguments concerning the Authority's decision fail to establish any extraordinary circumstances. Specifically, we reject the assertions that the brief denial of exceptions, based on full and careful consideration of the entire record in the case and expressly concluding that the exceptions failed to establish that the award was deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a), constitutes a denial of due process, a failure to adequately state the grounds of the denial, or a failure to resolve the exceptions. We find instead that these arguments are nothing more than disagreement with the merits of the Authority's decision and provide no basis for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Union's request for reconsideration is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., May 29, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY