American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2663 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri (Authority decision, July 12, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of a ruling that two union training proposals were nonnegotiable. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The Kansas City VA center required employees who worked with disturbed patients to complete a behavior-management workshop. The Authority had held that two union proposals about assignments and repeat training interfered with management rights. AFGE Local 2663 asked for reconsideration, arguing that its statements were overlooked and that the agency served a brief on the wrong local officer. The Authority found that it had considered the union's statements and that the service error caused no shown harm. It denied reconsideration for lack of extraordinary circumstances.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration rule at 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Reconsideration denied; earlier nonnegotiability ruling remains in place.
• Key point: A service error did not warrant reconsideration when the union showed no lost opportunity to present its position.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p619 ]
32:0619(89)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 89

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2663

Union

and

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

MEDICAL CENTER, KANSAS CITY,

MISSOURI

Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1477

(31 FLRA 988)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before us on the Union's motion for reconsideration of our March 24, 1988, decision in the above-cited case.

II. Background

The Agency requires employees who come into contact with disturbed patients to complete the "Management of Disturbed Behavior Workshop." In our decision, we found that two proposals concerning that training were nonnegotiable. The first proposal required the Agency to: (1) return employees who had been reassigned, because of unsuccessful performance in the training, to their previous assignment; and (2) give these employees two more chances to successfully complete the training. The second proposal required the Agency to provide the training prior to assigning employees to work in designated areas. We found that both of the proposals interfered with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(2)(A) to assign employees. We found that Proposal 2 also interfered with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union requests reconsideration of the decision. First, it argues that the Authority erroneously stated that the Union had not filed a response to the Agency's statement of position. See 31 FLRA at 989 n.1. The Union asserts in its request for reconsideration that statements concerning the proposals which were contained in its letter dated November 1, 1987, constituted its "position" and, therefore, its "response" to the Agency's position. Second, the Union asserts that the Agency did not comply with the Authority's instruction to serve all correspondence on the Union's designated representative.

The Agency argues that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the decision under our Rules and Regulations. The Agency contends that the first issue raised by the Union constitutes only disagreement with the Authority's decision. On the question of service, the Agency contends that (1) the Union does not claim or show that any harm resulted from the fact that the Agency served its response on the Union President rather than the Vice President, who was the Union's designated representative; and (2) it is clear from statements contained in the Union's request for reconsideration that the Union's designated representative had received a copy of the Agency statement of position.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party, who can establish "extraordinary circumstances," to request reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17.

Our statement in 31 FLRA at 989 n.1 that the Union "did not file a response to the Agency's statement of position" referred to the "full and detailed response" allowed under section 2424.7 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Our statement did not mean that we failed to consider the Union's statements regarding the proposal which accompanied its petition for review dated November 1, 1987. We noted and considered those statements in our decision. 31 FLRA at 989-91.

The Union asserts that we reached the wrong result in finding the proposals nonnegotiable. This assertion constitutes nothing more than disagreement with our decision and does not present a basis for reconsideration.

The Union also contends that rather than serving the local Union officials who had been designated as the Union's representatives in the case, the Agency served its statement of position on the local Union president. The Union does not claim that the manner in which the Agency served the statement of position on the Union prevented the Union from fully setting forth its position on the negotiability question prior to the Authority's decision. Rather, the Union states that the statements which it submitted when it filed its petition for review constituted its "position" and, therefore, its "response" to the Agency's position.

The Union does not claim, and there is no basis on which to conclude, that the Union was harmed by the manner in which the Agency's statement was served. Therefore, the Union's contention that the Agency's service of its statement of position was flawed does not present a basis for granting reconsideration of our decision. Compare American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1603 and U.S. Naval Hospital, Patuxent River, Maryland, 25 FLRA 487 (1987) (the Authority granted a request for reconsideration based on the agency's failure to properly serve its statement of position on the union and the union's contention that, as a result, it was denied an opportunity to set forth in full its position on a negotiability question); Accord Terpening Trucking Co., Inc., 271 NLRB 96, 96 n.1 (1984) (the National Labor Relations Board denied a motion to reject improperly served exceptions where the moving party neither contended that he had suffered any prejudice nor indicated that he wished to file exceptions or a brief of his own).

Based on the reasons discussed above, we deny the Union's motion for reconsideration.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

______
Jerry L. Calhoun,
Chairman
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

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