Air Force divisions at Los Angeles Air Force Base and AFGE Local 2429 (Authority decision, April 30, 1991)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 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

The Air Force sought reconsideration of an earlier order finding unlawful changes to bargaining unit employees’ working conditions. It filed after the regulatory deadline and asked the Authority to waive the expired time limit. Questions about compliance with the earlier order and a later bargaining impasse did not establish extraordinary circumstances. The Authority denied the waiver request without reaching the reconsideration motion.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7118.
• Outcome: Waiver of expired filing deadline denied; reconsideration motion not addressed.
• Key point: A later bargaining impasse did not justify reopening an expired reconsideration deadline.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v40 p519 ]

40:0519(50)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

40 FLRA No. 50

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2429, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party/Union)

8-CA-90241

AND

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DIVISION

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2429, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party/Union)

8-CA-90248

(38 FLRA 1485 (1991))

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF EXPIRED TIME LIMITS

AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

April 30, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Respondent's April 24, 1991, motion for reconsideration of the Authority's January 15, 1991, Decision and Order in the above-referenced case. The Respondent acknowledges that its motion is untimely and requests waiver of the expired time limit. No oppositions were filed to the Respondent's request and motion.

For the following reasons, we deny the Respondent's request for waiver of the expired time limit.

II. Decision and Order in 38 FLRA 1485

For the reasons set forth in 38 FLRA 1485, the Authority concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute by unlawfully implementing changes in certain conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. The Authority ordered the Respondent, among other things, to rescind the unlawful changes.

III. Respondent's Request for Waiver of Expired Time Limits

The Respondent asserts, in essence, that the Authority should waive the time limit applicable to the filing of motions for reconsideration because: (1) questions have arisen as to whether the Respondent has complied with the Authority's order in 38 FLRA 1485; and (2) bargaining occurring subsequent to the Authority's Order has resulted in an impasse which is now pending before the Federal Service Impasses Panel.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations provides that a request for reconsideration of a final order of the Authority must be filed within 10 days after service of the order. As acknowledged by the Respondent, its motion for reconsideration is untimely.

Section 2429.23(b) provides that the Authority may waive expired time limits "in extraordinary circumstances." The Respondent has not established such extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, without addressing the motion for reconsideration, the Respondent's request for waiver of the expired time limit is denied.

V. Order

The Respondent's request for waiver of the expired time limit is denied.

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