American Federation of Government Employees, Local 119 and U.S. Department of the Army, III Corps and Fort Hood (Authority decision, November 15, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its order dismissing arbitration exceptions for a service defect. This is an order concerning an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to such an order unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

The Authority had dismissed a Fort Hood union local's arbitration exceptions after the local failed to document timely service of the exceptions on the Army. The local sought reconsideration and submitted service notices. One notice identified a different case, and the other was late and did not establish that the actual exceptions had been served. The Authority found no extraordinary circumstances to reopen the dismissal and denied reconsideration.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17; service rules under § 2429.27.
• Outcome: Union request for reconsideration denied; dismissal of exceptions stands.
• Key point: A service certificate for another case and a late, vague certificate did not cure failure to document service of the exceptions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v38 p183 ]
38:0183(20)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

38 FLRA No. 20

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 119

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

III CORPS AND FORT HOOD

FORT HOOD, TEXAS

(Agency)

0-AR-1954

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION

November 15, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on a request for reconsideration filed by the Union. The Union requests reconsideration of the Authority's Order of August 17, 1990, which dismissed the Union's exceptions to an arbitration award because the Union had not complied with a prior Order of the Authority that directed it to serve a complete copy of its exceptions on the Agency and to file a statement of service with the Authority. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's request for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, the Union's request for reconsideration is denied.

II. Background

On July 2, 1990, the Union filed exceptions to an arbitration award dated June 19, 1990. By Order dated July 25, 1990, the Authority notified the Union that it had not complied with 5 C.F.R. º 2429.27(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations because it had not submitted to the Authority a signed and dated statement of service showing that it had properly served its exceptions on the Agency under 5 C.F.R. º 2429.27(a) and (b) and 5 C.F.R. º 2425.1(d). The Authority gave the Union until August 3, 1990, to comply with these regulations. When the Union failed to respond to the Authority's July 25 Order, the Authority dismissed the Union's exceptions on August 17, 1990.

III. Union's Request for Reconsideration

By letter to the Authority dated August 28, 1990, which the Authority received on September 20, 1990, the Union asserted that it had served a complete copy of its exceptions on the Agency and had sent the Statement of Service to the Authority, as required. The Union stated that it was enclosing with its letter a copy of what it had sent to the Agency and another copy of the Statement of Service. Accordingly, it requested that the Authority reopen the case and issue a decision.

The Union sent the following documents with its August 28, 1990 letter: (l) a "Notice of Certification" that "a copy of the attached Federal Labor Relations case 0-AR-1894 has been served to [the Agency] on this date 20 July 1990"; (2) a copy of the Authority's August 17, 1990 Order and Statement of Service; (3) a "Notice of Certification" that the Union had served "copies of the attached Federal Labor Relations case 0-AR-1954" on the Agency on September 13, 1990; and (4) another copy of that "Notice of Certification," demonstrating receipt by the Agency's representative on September 13, 1990.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

A party must show that "extraordinary circumstances" warrant reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority. 5 C.F.R. º 2429.17. We conclude that the Union has failed to establish extraordinary circumstances in this case.

The Authority dismissed the Union's exceptions because the Union failed to submit to the Authority by August 3, 1990, documentation establishing that it had properly served its exceptions on the Agency. We conclude that the Union has still failed to do so. In its request for reconsideration, the Union included a notice dated July 20, 1990, showing that the Union had served on the Agency papers concerning case 0-AR-1894, a different case than the one at issue herein. In addition, the Union included documentation that it had served the Agency regarding the instant case on September 13, 1990, well outside the time limit imposed by the Authority. Moreover, that "Notice of Certification" states only that the Union had served on the Agency "copies of the attached . . . case 0-AR-1954[,]" and, therefore, does not establish that it had served copies of its exceptions on the Agency, as required by 5 C.F.R. º 2429.27(a) and (c). Accordingly, we conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the Authority's Order dismissing the Union's exceptions.

V. Order

The Union's request for reconsideration is denied.

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