Michigan Air National Guard, Selfridge Air National Guard Base and Association of Civilian Technicians, Michigan State Council (Authority decision, February 16, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. This is the Authority's order resolving a reconsideration request. 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 Association of Civilian Technicians again asked the Authority to reconsider its ruling setting aside an arbitration award concerning a weight requirement for temporary-duty assignments. The Authority had already denied one request for reconsideration. It found that the latest request repeated arguments about the agreement and evidence that had already been addressed. Because the union showed no extraordinary circumstances, the Authority denied the request.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Second reconsideration request denied.
• Key point: Repetition of arguments already rejected did not justify reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v34 p890 ]
34:0890(148)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

34 FLRA No. 148

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL
GUARD

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE
MICHIGAN

and

THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS

MICHIGAN STATE
COUNCIL

0-AR-1534

(33 FLRA 385)

(34 FLRA No. 55)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION

February 16, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a Union request for reconsideration of our decision of January 12, 1990, denying a Union request for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in Michigan Air National Guard, Selfridge ANG Base Michigan and the Association of Civilian Technicians, Michigan State Council, 33 FLRA 385 (1988) (Michigan Air National Guard I). The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. For the reasons discussed below, the request is denied.

II. Background

In Michigan Air National Guard I, the Authority set aside an Arbitrator's award because the award was contrary to the Agency's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The Authority concluded that when the Agency determined that the grievant was not in compliance with the weight requirement and, thus, not eligible to go on temporary duty (TDY) assignments, the Agency was exercising its right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to: (1) establish the particular qualifications and skills needed to perform a TDY assignment; and (2) make judgments as to whether the grievant met those qualifications.

The Union filed a timely request for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in Michigan Air National Guard I claiming that the Authority's conclusion was based on an error of law and that the Authority's description of the record in Michigan Air National Guard I conflicted with the Arbitrator's factual findings.

In Michigan Air National Guard, Selfridge ANG Base Michigan and the Association of Civilian Technicians, Michigan State Council, 34 FLRA No. 55 (1990) (Michigan Air National Guard II), we denied the Union's request for reconsideration on the grounds that the Union's arguments constituted nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision in Michigan Air National Guard I and an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case.

III. Request for Reconsideration

In its latest request for reconsideration, the Union contends that Michigan Air National Guard I is based on an error of law. The Union claims that the Arbitrator found that the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement prohibited management from unilaterally imposing the new weight requirement on civilian TDY assignments. The Union further claims that the record was clear that no such requirement was ever imposed with respect to civilian TDY assignments before the current collective bargaining agreement became effective. Accordingly, the Union contends that the Authority's finding that employees had been informed of the weight requirement is without foundation in the record.

The Union also claims that the Authority has added "terms and conditions to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement to the contrary." Request at 2. The Union alleges that the "new weight restriction was unilaterally applied to a civilian term and condition of employment in a manner seemingly inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement." Id. The Union further alleges that the Arbitrator's award "confirmed that the new restriction violated the parties' agreement." Id. Therefore, the Union submits that the collective bargaining agreement, as interpreted by the Arbitrator's award, should be upheld.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. The arguments presented by the Union in support of its latest request for reconsideration constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decisions in Michigan Air National Guard I and II, and are an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. Further, we note that the arguments presented by the Union in its latest request for reconsideration are the same arguments which the Authority addressed at length and rejected in Michigan Air National Guard II.

V. Order

As the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the Union's request for reconsideration is denied.

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