Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v44/44-078.html
Timestamp: 2016-05-07 00:38:24
Document Index: 768034128

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

44:0950(78)AR - - VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA and NFFE Local 2102 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v44 p950 | FLRA
Our Boston office is undergoing some construction and currently the phone system is down. Please call the FLRA main line (202) 218-7770 and the extension of the agent. Also, the Boston Fax line is down, please send Fax for Boston to FLRA Headquarters at (202) 482-6608 and it will be forwarded to the Boston office. FLRA.gov
You are hereHome 44:0950(78)AR - - VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA and NFFE Local 2102 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v44 p950 44:0950(78)AR - - VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA and NFFE Local 2102 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v44 p950
[ v44 p950 ] 44:0950(78)AR
The decision of the Authority follows: 44 FLRA No. 78 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER ATLANTA, GEORGIA (Agency) and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2102 (Union) 0-AR-2172 (44 FLRA 427 (1992)) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION April 28, 1992 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz. I. Statement of the Case This matter is before us on a request for reconsideration of 44 FLRA
427 (1992) filed by the Agency under section 2429.17 of our Rules and
Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the request. Because the Agency
fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting
reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the request. II. The Decision in 44 FLRA 427 In 44 FLRA 427, we rejected the Agency's contention that an
arbitrator's award was deficient because it was contrary to 38 C.F.R. §
1.303(b)(1). The Arbitrator found that the Agency violated 38 C.F.R. § 1.303(b)(1) in its establishment of parking fees for its Atlanta facility. The
Agency had argued, among other things, that the award was contrary to this
regulation because the award imposed a ceiling on the parking fees. We examined
the language of 38 C.F.R. § 1.303(b)(1) and the record evidence and concluded that
the Agency had not established that the award was deficient. As to the Agency's contention that the award imposed a ceiling on the
parking fees, we noted that the Arbitrator expressly stated that: [I]n accordance with [38 C.F.R. § 1.303], the rate for parking at
the [Agency] shall be not less than the lowest rate charged at any VA medical
facility. Should that rate be lower than the current rate at the [Agency],
employees shall be reimbursed back to June 17, 1991, provided that proper
parking receipts are available. 44 FLRA at 433 (quoting Award at 27). We found nothing in the award that
imposed a ceiling on the parking rates that the Agency may establish. Rather,
we found that the award required, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 1.303(b)(1), that "the rate for parking at the Agency's facility 'shall not be
less than the lowest rate charged at any VA medical facility.'" Id.
Thus, we found that the award simply set a floor for parking rates at the
Agency's facility. III. Positions of the Parties A. Agency's Request for Reconsideration The Agency states that in its exceptions it argued that the award
conflicted with 38 C.F.R. § 1.303(b)(1) because it "set a ceiling on
parking fees." Request for Reconsideration (Request) at 1. The Agency notes
that the Authority rejected this contention and found that the "award did not
set a ceiling but, consistent with the VA regulation, established a floor of
the lowest rate." Id. According to the Agency, this holding
"misconstrues the effect of the arbitration award." Id. The Agency notes that the award states that the parking rate shall be
not less than the lowest rate consistent with the regulation. However, the
Agency contends that the award also states that if "the lowest" rate is lower
than the current rate at the Agency's facility, employees shall be reimbursed.
Id. The Agency asserts that the effect of this part of the award "is to
establish parking rates at the same rate as VA's lowest rate, thus imposing a
ceiling, as well as a floor, of the lowest VA rate." Id. at 1-2.
According to the Agency, "[t]his defeats the flexibility of any reasonable rate
above the floor authorized by the regulation." Id. at 2. The Agency
states that "[i]f, as the Authority ruled, the arbitration award did not set a
ceiling, but only a floor, allowing [the Agency] to establish any rate above
the floor, [the Agency] would have no objection to the award." Id. at
n.1. B. Union's Opposition The Union contends that the Agency's request is nothing more than an
attempt to relitigate the merits of the case. According to the Union, the
phrase "'not less than' in the regulation plainly includes 'equal to.'"
Opposition at 2. Therefore, in the Union's view, "an award setting rates for
[the Atlanta facility] at an amount equal to the lowest rate charged at the VA
medical facility with the lowest established parking fees is wholly consistent
with the Agency's regulations." Id. The Union further argues that the
parties jointly granted the Arbitrator the authority to establish parking rates
in accordance with law and regulation. The Union notes that the Arbitrator
retained jurisdiction and informed the parties that if they could not agree on
a rate, he would "set the rate himself[.]" Id. at 3. Therefore, the
Union asserts that the Agency's request should be denied. IV. Analysis and Conclusions Section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations permits a party that can
establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request
reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Agency has
not established extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section
2429.17 to warrant reconsideration of our decision in 44 FLRA 427. The Agency's assertion that our decision misconstrues the award
provides no basis for reconsidering the decision in 44 FLRA 427. As we found in
44 FLRA 427, nothing in the award imposes a ceiling on the parking rates that
the Agency may establish. The award provides that the rate for parking at the
Agency's facility shall be not less than the lowest rate charged at any VA
medical facility. The award further provides that if the rate that is
established in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 1.303(b)(1) for parking at the
Agency's facility is lower than the current rate at the Agency's facility,
parking receipts are available. Consequently, we conclude that the Agency has
failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant
reconsideration of our decision in 44 FLRA 427. Accordingly, we will deny the
request. V. Order The Agency's request for reconsideration is denied. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not