---

31 FLRA No. 68

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY AIR DEFENSE
CENTER AND FORT BLISS
FORT BLISS, TEXAS

                    Respondent

      and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2068, INDEPENDENT

                    Charging Party

      and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R14-89

                    Party in Interest

Case No. 6-CA-60020
   (29 FLRA 362)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
This case is before us on the General Counsel's motion for reconsideration of 
our September 30, 1987, decision in the above-cited case. For the reasons set 
forth below, we deny the motion for reconsideration. 
In our decision, we found that the Respondent did not violate section 
7116(a)(1) and (3) of the Statute by refusing to provide the National Federation 
of Federal Employees, Local 2068, Independent (NFFE) with a building for use 
during a representation election campaign. NFFE had requested a building similar 
to the one the National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-89 (NAGE) 
had acquired for [PAGE] use as a union hall under Article IV, Section II of the 
collective bargain agreement entered into by the Respondent and NAGE before NFFE 
became a union "having equivalent status." We found that the Respondent had 
satisfied the requirement of section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute by offering NFFE 
the use of customary and routine facilities for use in the campaign. We noted 
that the Respondent had offered NFFE the use of various meeting facilities, 
including a theater and conference rooms to use in its campaign effort. 
We concluded that section 7116(a)(3) did not require an agency to furnish a 
labor organization that has achieved equivalent status with an incumbent Union 
in a representation proceeding with the exact same services and facilities that 
the incumbent obtained through collective bargaining before the proceeding. 
Further, we stated that it was our belief that a building was not the kind of 
"customary and routine" facility contemplated by Congress in fashioning section 
7116(a)(3). Nevertheless, we found that even if it was a "customary and routine" 
facility, NAGE had not requested the facility nor did the Respondent provide the 
facility to NAGE during the representation proceeding. Therefore, we concluded 
that the Respondent had satisfied its obligation by offering NFFE various 
meeting facilities and was not required to provide NFFE's with a building 
similar to that provided to NAGE under the collective bargaining agreement. 
In its motion for reconsideration, the General Counsel contends that our 
decision represents a substantial change in the law on the Agency's duty of 
neutrality in the context of a pending representation case petition when two 
competing labor organizations are involved. The General Counsel requests the 
Authority to reconsider and reverse or limit application of its decision. 
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party to 
request reconsideration of a final decision or order when the party can 
establish "extraordinary circumstances." We conclude that the General Counsel is 
merely disagreeing with the merits of our decision and is attempting to 
relitigate the issues of that decision by continuing to argue that only "exact 
same" facility satisfies the requirement of section 7116(a)(3) of the Statute. 
Accordingly, we find that the General Counsel has not established "extraordinary 
circumstances" for [ v31 p2 ] reconsideration of our decision within the meaning 
of section 2429.17. The General Counsel's motion is, therefore, denied. 
Issued, Washington, D.C., March 22, 1988. 
Jerry L. Calhoun,        Chairman

Jean McKee,                Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

---