Veterans Administration Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2382 (Authority decision, February 12, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its earlier unfair labor practice order. 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). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2382 asked the Authority to reconsider its earlier decision involving the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Phoenix. The union argued that the Authority should have restored the prior working arrangement after an administrative law judge found a past practice. The Authority explained that the practice concerned one management agreement about one employee, which did not justify an order restoring the status quo. Because the union raised issues the Authority had already considered and showed no extraordinary circumstances, the Authority denied reconsideration.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration for extraordinary circumstances under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; the earlier order remains in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with an earlier ruling does not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v25 p659 ]

25:0659(53)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

25 FLRA No. 53

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER,
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Respondent

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2382, AFL-CIO
Charging Party

Case No. 8-CA-50153
24 FLRA No. 75

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Authority on a motion field by the Union, the Charging Party, for reconsideration of the Authority's decision and order in Veterans Administration Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 24 FLRA no. 75 (1986). In its motion the Union contends reconsideration is warranted because the Authority's decision adopts the Judge's failure to restore the status quo despite the Judge's ruling that a past practice had been established.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides that "a party . . . who can establish . . . extraordinary circumstances
. . . may move for reconsideration of" a final decision and order of the Authority. We conclude that the Union fails to establish extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of the Rules. In our decision, we adopted the Judge's finding that the practice established by the Union did not go beyond a particular agreement made by management as to one specific employee and the Judge's rationale for denying on that basis a status quo ante order. Thus, the Union's motion raises no issues not previously raised before and considered by the Authority. Instead, the motion only constitutes a disagreement with the merits of the Authority's decision and an attempt to relitigate the matter.

Accordingly, the Union's motion for reconsideration is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., February 12, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY