Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey and American Federation of Government Employees, Second District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1340 (Authority decision, October 23, 1995)

Final FLRA representation decision. This order denies reconsideration of the Authority's earlier denial of review of election objections and ends this reconsideration proceeding. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), judicial review of a covered final Authority order must be sought within 60 days after issuance, subject to that section's exclusions. The decision does not address whether judicial review is available for this election dispute.

Plain-English summary

NFFE Local 1340 asked the Authority to reconsider its refusal to review a regional director's ruling on objections to a representation election at the FAA Technical Center. The union repeated claims about challenged votes, election ground rules, witness testimony, and absentee ballots. The Authority said that disagreement with its earlier ruling did not establish the extraordinary circumstances required for reconsideration. It denied the motion, leaving its prior refusal to review the election objections in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: NFFE Local 1340's motion for reconsideration denied.
• Key point: Repeating arguments from an application for review does not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v51 p377 ]
51:0377(34)RO

The decision of the Authority follows:

51 FLRA No. 34

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL
CENTER

ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY

(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

SECOND DISTRICT

(Petitioner)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1340

(Labor-Organization)

BP-RO-40051

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

October 23, 1995

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; and Tony Armendariz, Member.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration of the Authority's Order, issued on September 14, 1995, denying the application of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1340 (Labor Organization), for review of the Regional Director's decision and order on objections to an election. No opposition to the motion for reconsideration was filed.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Labor Organization has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, we deny the Labor Organization's motion.

II. Order Denying Exceptions

In the Authority's Order Denying Application for Review, the Authority concluded that the Labor Organization had failed to establish that compelling reasons existed for granting review under 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17(c).

III. Motion for Reconsideration

The Labor Organization repeats the arguments made in its original Application for Review. In particular, the Labor Organization argues that the Regional Director erred in: (1) concluding that the challenged votes could not be determinative; (2) failing to consider whether the Agency violated the parties' ground rules agreement; and (3) failing to take testimony from Union witnesses who would have contradicted the testimony taken at the hearing. In addition, the Labor Organization asserts that the Authority's policy concerning absentee ballots should be reconsidered.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations, a party seeking reconsideration after the Authority has issued a final decision or order bears the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. In U.S. Department of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 50 FLRA 84 (1995), the Authority identified a limited number of situations in which extraordinary circumstances have been found to exist. These include situations where a moving party has established that evidence, information or issues crucial to the decision had not been presented to the Authority, or where the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusion of law or factual finding. Id. at 86-87. The moving party's disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Authority is insufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement. Id. at 87.

In this case, the Labor Organization merely reiterates the same claims that it raised in its Application for Review. These assertions do not establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary to warrant reconsideration of the Authority's order.

V. Order

The Labor Organization's motion for reconsideration is denied.

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