[ v57 p748 ]
57 FLRA No. 161
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1156
AND
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 1170
(Unions)
and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL INVENTORY CONTROL POINT
AND
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
(Agencies)
0-AR-3294
(57 FLRA 602 (2001))
_____
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
April 19, 2002
_____
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
This matter is before the Authority on a motion for reconsideration and request for a stay of the Authority's decision in 57 FLRA 602 (2001) filed by the Agencies under § 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations. The Unions did not file an opposition to the Agencies' motion.
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a final Authority decision. See United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Sup't Group, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 50 FLRA 84, 85 (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 the Authority erred in its remedial order, process, conclusion of law, or factual finding. Attempts to relitigate conclusions reached by the Authority are insufficient to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances requirement. Id. at 86-87.
A party seeking reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority has the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. In this case, the Agencies assert that the Authority erred in interpreting the Back Pay Act. Upon careful consideration of the Agencies' motion and Authority precedent, we conclude that the Agencies have not raised any new arguments in their motion that would warrant reconsideration of the Authority's decision. In particular, the Agencies' arguments that the award conflicts with the Back Pay Act and its implementing regulations reiterate arguments made previously in exceptions to the award and attempt to relitigate conclusions reached by the Authority in resolving those exceptions. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. [n1]
Footnote # 1 for 57 FLRA No. 161
In light of this decision, we need not consider the Agencies' motion for a stay of the decision in 57 FLRA 602.