Arbitrator Philip Tamoush found that the Agency did not violate the parties’ collective‑bargaining agreement or the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute  (the Statute)^[1] when it began furloughing employees in the Space Positioning Optical Radar Tracking Military Radar Unit (SPORT) before completing impact‑and‑implementation bargaining over the furlough plan. The Union filed exceptions to the award, and in SPORT Air Traffic Controllers Organization (SPORT I),^[2] the Authority denied the Union’s exceptions.

The question before us is whether the Union has established extraordinary circumstances that warrant reconsideration of SPORT I. In its motion for reconsideration, the Union argues that the Authority’s decision in SPORT I is inconsistent with the Authority’s decisions in U.S. DHS, U.S. CBP (CBP)^[3] and U.S. DOJ, INS (INS).^[4] Because the Authority considered and rejected the Union’s argument that the award was contrary to those decisions in SPORT I, the Union’s argument provides no basis for granting reconsideration. We therefore deny the motion.

The facts are set forth in detail in SPORT I and are only briefly summarized here. In order to comply with the Budget Control Act of 2011,^[5] the Agency was required to furlough its employees. The parties bargained over the impact and implementation of the Agency’s furlough plan; however, they were unable to reach agreement. The Union requested the assistance of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel), but the Panel was not able to resolve the impasse by July 8, 2013, the date on which the Agency wanted to begin the furloughs. The Agency began furloughing the SPORT employees the week of July 8, contending that doing so was necessary for the functioning of the Agency. 

The Union filed exceptions to the Arbitrator’s award. In its exceptions, it contended, as relevant here, that the award was contrary to law because “the Arbitrator did not factually distinguish this case from the Authority’s decisions in [CBP]and [INS].”^[6] The Authority rejected this argument, explaining that “in both of those cases, the factfinder found the agency’s necessary‑functioning defense to be unsupported,”^[7] whereas in SPORT I, “the Agency provided evidence to support its necessary‑functioning claim, the Arbitrator credited the Agency’s evidence, and the Union [did] not provide[] a basis for finding that the Arbitrator erred in doing so.”^[8]    

 

The Authority’s Regulations do not provide for responses to motions for reconsideration. And, while a party may request leave to file additional documents under § 2429.26 of the Authority’s Regulations,^[9] the Agency did not request leave to do so here. Accordingly, we have not considered the Agency’s response.^[10]

 

Section 2429.17 of the Authority’s Regulations permits a party to request reconsideration of an Authority decision if it can establish extraordinary circumstances.^[11] A party seeking reconsideration bears the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action.^[12] The Authority has found that errors in its conclusions of law or factual findings constitute extraordinary circumstances that may justify reconsideration.^[13] But attempts to relitigate conclusions reached by the Authority are insufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances.^[14] 

 

The Union argues that extraordinary circumstances warrant reconsideration because the Authority’s decision in SPORT I is contrary to Authority precedent, namely CBP and INS. As explained above, the Authority expressly considered and rejected the argument that the award in SPORT I was contrary to CBP and INS.^[15] The Union’s argument that this holding is itself contrary to CBP and INS is little more than a bare attempt to relitigate the Authority’s denial of its contrary‑to‑law exception, which is insufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Union has not established that extraordinary circumstances warrant reconsideration of SPORT I.

 

 

---