International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 121 and U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (Authority decision, July 28, 1982)

Final FLRA decision on reconsideration. The Authority denied the union's request to reopen its negotiability decision. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), an aggrieved party may seek judicial review of a final Authority order within 60 days of issuance.

Plain-English summary

The Authority had found a union proposal about employee training and preserving bargaining unit work outside the Government Printing Office's duty to bargain. The union sought reconsideration, saying its original filing had not fully explained the training and job protection issues. The Authority found no extraordinary circumstances because the union could have presented that material in its original response. It denied reconsideration and left the earlier negotiability ruling in place. This order did not make a new negotiability ruling.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Reconsideration denied; the earlier ruling that Proposal 1 was outside the duty to bargain remained in place.
• Key point: Material available for the original filing did not establish extraordinary circumstances for reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p188 ]

08:0188(35)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 35

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 121
Union

and

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Agency

Case No. O-NG-365

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A MOTION BY LOCAL 121 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE PORTION OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION AND ORDER
RELATING TO PROPOSAL 1 IN INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 121 AND U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C., 8 FLRA NO. 35(1982).

PROPOSAL 1 CONCERNED, FIRST, THE ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN TRAINING TO
UNIT EMPLOYEES AND, SECOND, A "WORK PRESERVATION" REQUIREMENT, THAT IS,
THE CONTINUED ASSIGNMENT OF WORK TO UNIT EMPLOYEES WHICH HAD
TRADITIONALLY AND HISTORICALLY BEEN PERFORMED BY SUCH EMPLOYEES. THE
AUTHORITY FOUND THIS PROPOSAL TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.

IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE UNION STATES THAT THE MOTION
WAS NECESSITATED "BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE
AUTHORITY BY OUR UNION (IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF
POSITION) DID NOT PRESENT THE AUTHORITY WITH A CLEAR OVER-ALL VIEW OF
THE UNIQUE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEMS OF TRAINING AND PROTECTION OF JOBS
THAT HAS SUCCESSFULLY BEEN DONE BY OUR MEMBERS FOR MANY YEARS." THE
UNION THEN ESSENTIALLY DISPUTES VARIOUS CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE AGENCY
IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY AND, IN ADDITION,
INCLUDES AN UNDATED "WORK PRESERVATION" AGREEMENT PURPORTEDLY ENTERED
INTO BY THE AGENCY.

AS TO SUCH MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, SECTION 2429.17 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT THE MOVING
PARTY MUST ESTABLISH "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES" IN ITS MOVING PAPERS.
THE UNION HEREIN HAS NOT DONE SO. SPECIFICALLY IN THIS RESPECT, AND IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR EVEN AN ASSERTION TO THE CONTRARY, IT
APPEARS THAT THE MATTERS NOW SOUGHT TO BE ADDUCED BY THE UNION ARE
MERELY MATTERS WHICH PROPERLY COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN ITS ORIGINAL
RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF POSITION.

ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 28, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY