American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1770 and U.S. Department of the Navy, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg (Authority decision, November 25, 1991)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving 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 the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision resolves a motion to reconsider an arbitration order and does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Authority dismissed the Fort Bragg agency's exceptions to an arbitration award after it failed to correct filing defects by the stated deadline. The agency sought reconsideration, saying the order identifying those defects reached its representative only after the deadline because it had been mailed to the wrong address. The Authority found that it used the address the agency supplied and that the delay appeared to occur in the agency's internal mail system. Those circumstances did not justify reconsideration. The motion was denied, so dismissal of the exceptions remained in effect.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Agency motion denied; dismissal of arbitration exceptions remains in effect.
• Key point: A party must provide the correct mailing address; delays in its internal mail did not establish extraordinary circumstances.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v43 p303 ]
43:0303(30)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

43 FLRA No. 30

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1770

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

XVIII, AIRBORNE CORPS

FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA

(Agency)

0-AR-2159

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

November 25, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a motion filed by the Agency seeking reconsideration of an Authority Order dismissing the Agency's exceptions to an arbitration award. The Authority dismissed the exceptions because the Agency failed to respond to an earlier Order granting the Agency an opportunity to correct deficiencies in its exceptions. The Union did not file an opposition to the Agency's motion for reconsideration.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Agency has not established extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Authority's Order dismissing the exceptions. Accordingly, we will deny the motion for reconsideration.

II. Background

The Agency filed exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Sue Olinger Shaw. By Order dated September 5, 1991, the Authority notified the Agency that its exceptions did not comply with certain procedural requirements. The Agency was directed to correct the deficiencies by September 18, 1991, and notified that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the exceptions. The Authority's Order was served on the Agency's representative on September 5, 1991, by certified mail, return receipt requested.

The Agency did not respond to the Authority's September 5 Order. Accordingly, by Order dated September 30, 1991, the Authority dismissed the Agency's exceptions. The Authority's September 30 Order also was served on the Agency's representative by certified mail, return receipt requested.

III. The Agency's Motion for Reconsideration

The Agency states that it did not receive either the September 5 or the September 30 Order until October 3, 1991. The Agency contends that as it was not aware of the Authority's September 5 Order until the time limit in which to comply with the Order had expired, extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority's dismissal of the exceptions.

The Agency asserts that both Orders were sent to the following "incorrect" address:

Captain Rex Staub
Agency Representative
U.S. Department of the
Army
Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps
and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg,
NC 28307-5000

Id. (emphasis in original). According to the Agency, the "correct" address is:

Captain Rex Staub
Agency Representative
Office of the Staff
Judge Advocate
XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg, NC
28307-5000

Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

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 final decision or order of the Authority. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Agency has failed to establish such extraordinary circumstances in this case.

The Authority's September 5 Order was served on the Agency's representative of record by certified mail, return receipt requested on that date. The record reveals, and the Agency does not dispute, that the Order was mailed to the address provided by the Agency in its exceptions. Clearly, the Agency was responsible for ensuring that the Authority was provided with the correct mailing address. Accordingly, the Agency's assertion that the Authority's Order was sent to the incorrect address does not establish extraordinary circumstances.

Moreover, the "incorrect" address is part of the Agency's property. Indeed, the Authority's September 30 Order, also mailed to the "incorrect" address, was received by the Agency representative on October 3, 1991. It appears, in this circumstance, that the delay in receipt of the September 5 Order resulted from delays in the Agency's internal mail system. Such delays do not establish extraordinary circumstances. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Area II, Philadelphia Region and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, 42 FLRA 1105, 1107-08 (1991).

The Agency has not established extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations warranting reconsideration of the Authority's order dismissing the Agency's exceptions. Therefore, we will deny the Agency's motion.

V. Order

The Agency's motion for reconsideration is denied.

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