Letterman Army Medical Center, Nutrition Care Directorate and Independent Letterman Hospital Workers' Union (Authority decision, April 28, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's request to reconsider its earlier decision upholding the arbitrator's conclusion that a separation grievance was not arbitrable. 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

The Authority had earlier upheld an arbitrator's finding that the separation of a veteran readjustment appointee during the first year of employment was outside the negotiated grievance procedure. The union sought reconsideration, arguing that the dispute concerned allegedly false testimony and that the employee should have been converted to competitive status. The Authority found that these arguments repeated disagreements with its earlier ruling rather than establishing extraordinary circumstances. It denied reconsideration.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Union's request for reconsideration denied.
• Key point: Relitigating the merits does not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p1277 ]
31:1277(116)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA NO. 119

LETTERMAN ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
NUTRITION CARE DIRECTORATE

Activity

and

INDEPENDENT LETTERMAN HOSPITAL
WORKERS' UNION

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1392

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 November 30, 1987, which denied its exceptions.

In our decision, we concluded that grievances concerning the separation of a veteran readjustment appointee during the initial year of employment are precluded from coverage by negotiated grievance procedures. Accordingly, we upheld the Arbitrator's finding that because of the grievant's probationary status, the dispute concerning the separation of the grievant during the first year of his readjustment appointment was not grievable or arbitrable.

In its request for reconsideration, the Union argues that the Arbitrator addressed the wrong issue. The Union contends that the issue was not the separation of the grievant from the Federal Service, but a grievance concerning the evidence and testimony given by Lieutenant Colonel Lelonek on July 9, 1986. The Union contends that the testimony of Lelonek was false and that when the Commanding General failed to take the appropriate action, it filed a grievance. The Union also contends that the grievant was entitled to be converted to competitive status prior to his discharge and, therefore, was not a probationary employee.

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. Here, however, the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the arguments presented by the Union in support of its notion constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision and also constitute an attempt to relitigate the merits of this case.

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

Issued, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY