American Federation of Government Employees Council 236 and General Services Administration, Region 2 (Authority decision, May 29, 1997)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its earlier dismissal of arbitration exceptions. 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 order does not address an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Authority had dismissed exceptions to an arbitration award after a union official failed to answer an order asking whether he was authorized to file for AFGE Council 236. The official requested reconsideration, explaining that the order had been placed in the union's grievance file and that he did not see it before the deadline. The Authority found that this did not amount to the extraordinary circumstances required to reopen its earlier order. It denied reconsideration, leaving the dismissal in place. The decision does not describe the underlying grievance or arbitration award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Reconsideration denied; earlier dismissal of arbitration exceptions remains in place.
• Key point: Misfiling the clarification order did not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v52 p1531 ]
52:1531(144)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

52 FLRA No. 144

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

COUNCIL 236

(Union)

and

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

REGION 2

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

(Agency)

0-AR-2950

_____

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

May 29, 1997

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; and Donald S. Wasserman, Member.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a request for reconsideration filed by a Union official under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The official seeks reconsideration of an Authority order dated May 2, 1997, dismissing exceptions to an arbitration award for failure to respond to the Authority's order requesting clarification of the exceptions. No opposition to the motion was filed.

For the following reasons, we conclude that it has not been established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of the Authority's order dismissing the exceptions. Accordingly, we deny the motion.

II. Background

Exceptions were filed to the award of Arbitrator John M. Donoghue in the above-captioned case. On April 10, 1997, the Authority issued a notice acknowledging the exceptions. On April 11, 1997, the Authority issued an order stating that it was unclear whether the exceptions had been filed on behalf of the grievant or the Union. Accordingly, the Authority directed the official who filed the exceptions to file with the Authority by April 24, 1997, a response to the order showing that he was authorized by the Union to act on its behalf. Because a reply to the order was not filed by April 24, the Authority dismissed the exceptions.

III. Request for Reconsideration

The Union official contends that he had no knowledge of the Authority's order requesting clarification until May 14, 1997 because the order was placed in the Union's grievance file along with the acknowledgment notice. The official argues, therefore, that reconsideration is warranted because the failure to respond was not due to either negligence or "lack of concern." Motion at 1.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations, a party seeking reconsideration after the Authority has issued a final order bears the "heavy burden" of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3870 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, Washington, D.C., 50 FLRA 445, 447 (1995) (Local 3870).

We find unpersuasive the contention that the placement in the Union's grievance file of the deficiency order with the acknowledgment notice constitutes extraordinary circumstances. In Local 3870, the Authority held that receipt of an acknowledgment and deficiency order on the same day, coupled with counsel's illness, did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a failure to respond to the deficiency order. Consistent with Local 3870, we conclude that extraordinary circumstances have not been established in this case.

V. Order

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

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