Federal Aviation Administration, Atlantic City, New Jersey and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1340 (Authority decision, August 17, 1988)

FAA Atlantic City and NFFE Local 1340 (FLRA 0-AR-1472): Reconsideration denied

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-AR-1472
Decided
August 17, 1988
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-04

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1988, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1988
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's request to reconsider its earlier decision upholding an arbitration award on accelerated promotions. 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

NFFE Local 1340 sought reconsideration of an Authority decision upholding an arbitrator's denial of accelerated promotions at the FAA's Atlantic City facility. The earlier decision found that the agency could not grant the promotions without a training agreement or Office of Personnel Management approval. In its new request, the union repeated questions about the effect of OPM's decision and equitable estoppel. The Authority found no extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration and denied the request.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
  • Outcome: Union reconsideration request denied; prior decision stands.
  • Key point: Repeating arguments already considered did not establish extraordinary circumstances.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p820 ]
32:0820(121)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY

Agency

and

LOCAL 1340, NATIONAL FEDERATION

OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1472

(32 FLRA 426)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a request filed by the Union seeking reconsideration of the Authority's decision of June 20, 1988. We deny the request.

In our decision, we concluded that the Union failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award was deficient on any of the grounds for review set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. We found that the Agency had no authority to grant the grievants accelerated promotions under 5 C.F.R. § 300.603(a)(1) and (4) without a training agreement or specific approval from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). We upheld the Arbitrator's finding that these regulations were binding on the Agency and the Arbitrator. We also noted the Arbitrator's finding that OPM has the authority to interpret the cited regulations. Finally, we concluded that the Arbitrator did not err in finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not available in this case.

II. The Union's Request

In its request for reconsideration, the Union reasserts the substance of the arguments presented in its exceptions. Specifically, the Union requests that the Authority determine (1) whether the Arbitrator may reverse OPM's decision regarding the application of 5 C.F.R. § 300.603(a)(4) in this case and (2) whether the amount of harm suffered by the grievants prevents the Arbitrator from applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

III. Discussion

We conclude that the Union's request provides no basis on which to grant reconsideration. 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. In fact, the Union states that the issues presented in its request for reconsideration were presented in its exceptions. Thus, we find that the arguments presented by the Union in support of its motion constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the merits of this case.

IV. Order

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

__________
Jerry L. Calhoun Chairman

Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace