59 FLRA No. 2

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on the Union's motion for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 58 FLRA 318 (2003) (Member Pope concurring). The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's motion. [*] 

      Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Regulations permits a party who can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority decision. See United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 50 FLRA 84, 85 (1995) (Scott AFB). In Scott AFB, 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. See id. at 85-87. The party seeking reconsideration of a decision of the Authority has a heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this unusual action. See id. at 85.

      In this case, the Union contends that the Authority erred in finding that the provision, which requires the disbursement of funds in order to reimburse employees for losses incurred as a result of cancelled leave, is contrary to law as an unauthorized expenditure of appropriated funds. The Union claims that the Authority failed to properly analyze its case law under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), the necessary expense doctrine and the availability of appropriated funds for general Agency operations. The Union also contends that the Authority erroneously held that the contract provision violates 5 U.S.C. § 5536. In addition, the Union maintains that the Authority erroneously failed to address whether the provision is an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute as directed in ACT, Puerto Rico Army Chapter v. FLRA, 269 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

      We conclude that the Union fails to meet the heavy burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify reconsideration of 58 FLRA 318. The Union fails to establish that any of the situations identified as constituting extraordinary circumstances are present. As such, the Union provides no basis for granting reconsideration.

      Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion.

   Member Pope reaffirms her separate opinion in 58 FLRA 318 (2003). However, in light of the majority's decision in that case, Member Pope joins in denying the motion for reconsideration.