Sport Air Traffic Controllers Organization and Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California (Authority decision, November 4, 1996)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its earlier unfair labor practice order. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), a person aggrieved by a final Authority order may generally seek judicial review within 60 days of issuance. A review petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

The Authority had found that the Sport Air Traffic Controllers Organization committed an unfair labor practice by insisting to impasse on recording collective bargaining sessions. The organization sought reconsideration, arguing that the Authority had failed to answer whether a party could unilaterally make an accurate tape record of negotiations. The Authority held that these were the same arguments it had already considered. Because the organization showed no extraordinary circumstances under the reconsideration rule, the Authority denied the motion and left its earlier order in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; earlier unfair labor practice order left in place.
• Key point: Repeating an argument already considered did not justify reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v52 p561 ]
52:0561(52)CO

The decision of the Authority follows:

52 FLRA No. 52

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

SPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION
(SATCO)

(Respondent)

and

AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER (AFFTC)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

(Charging Party)

SF-CO-50828

(52 FLRA 339 (1996))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

November 4, 1996

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz and Donald S. Wasserman, Members.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order in 52 FLRA 339 (1996). The General Counsel did not file an opposition to the motion.

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 Respondent has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist and we deny the Respondent's motion.

II. Decision in 52 FLRA 339

In 52 FLRA 339, the Authority concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(b)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by insisting to impasse on the tape recording of the parties' collective bargaining negotiations. In reaching its decision, the Authority adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge.

III. Motion for Reconsideration

In its motion, the Respondent asserts that the Authority never addressed the issue presented in its exceptions to the Judge's decision: "[C]an a party to negotiations under [the Statute] unilaterally create and maintain an accurate record of . . . negotiations by use of a tape recorder?" Motion for Reconsideration at 2. The Respondent contends that the Authority and the Judge "ignored the real issue and [its] consequences." Id. at 1.

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. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 50 FLRA 84, 85-87 (1995) (Scott Air Force Base). In Scott Air Force Base, 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: (1) an intervening court decision or change in the law affected dispositive issues; (2) evidence, information or issues crucial to the decision had not been presented to the Authority; and (3) the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusion of law, or factual finding. Extraordinary circumstances have also been found by the Authority where the moving party has not been given an opportunity to address an issue raised sua sponte by the Authority in its decision. Id. at 87 (footnote omitted).

In this case, the Respondent's assertion that the Authority did not address the issue presented in its exceptions to the Judge's decision does not establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary to warrant reconsideration. Rather, the Respondent's arguments are the same as those we considered in 52 FLRA 339. Accordingly, we deny the Respondent's motion for reconsideration.

V. Order

The Respondent's motion for reconsideration is denied.

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