Panama Canal Commission and International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (Authority decision, September 24, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its arbitration-exceptions order. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitration awards are generally excluded from ordinary judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under § 7116; this order does not decide one.

Plain-English summary

The Authority had dismissed union exceptions to a mediation arbitration award as untimely. The Panama Canal Commission requested reconsideration, arguing that the Authority should instead have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of the award's connection to the impasses panel. The Authority found no extraordinary circumstances and treated the request as disagreement with its prior ruling. It denied reconsideration, leaving the untimeliness dismissal in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17, 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Agency request for reconsideration denied; prior dismissal of union exceptions stands.
• Key point: Rearguing the basis for dismissal did not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v22 p605 ]
22:0605(67)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

22 FLRA NO. 67

PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Agency

and

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS,
MATES AND PILOTS, MARINE DIVISION
ILA, AFL-CIO

Union

Case No. 0-AR-948

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Authority at this time on a request filed by the Agency seeking reconsideration of the Authority's Order of July 17, 1986, dismissing the Union's exceptions.

The Union's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award, filed with the Authority on April 3, 1985, were dismissed on the basis that they were untimely. The award in this case, which resulted from a mediation-arbitration conducted by a Member of the Federal Service Impasses Panel, was dated January 17, 1985, and was apparently served on the parties by mail the same day. Subsequently, both parties requested clarification of the award and the Arbitrator responded on March 1, 1985, essentially reiterating his earlier award. In dismissing the exceptions as untimely, the Authority noted that while a response to a request for clarification which gives rise to the deficiencies alleged in the exceptions can operate to extend the time limits for filing with the Authority, the Arbitrator did not modify his award. In its motion for reconsideration the Agency argues that the Union's exceptions should be dismissed on a jurisdictional basis rather than on a procedural basis because the award was a final action of the Federal Service Impasses Panel reviewable under section 7117 or section 7118 of the Statute rather than an arbitrator's award reviewable under section 7122 of the Statute.

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 Agency has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the arguments presented by the Agency in support of its request essentially constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the matter.

Accordingly, the Agency's request for reconsideration is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C. September 24, 1986.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY