United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Swanton, Vermont (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2774, National Border Patrol Council (Charging Party/Union) 

  66 FLRA No. 11    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SWANTON, VERMONT (Respondent)   and   AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2774 NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL (Charging Party/Union)   BN-CA-09-0171 (65 FLRA 1023 (2011))   _____   ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION   August 26, 2011   _____   Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members   I.             Statement of the Case   This matter is before the Authority on the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration (motion) of the Authority’s decision in United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Swanton, Vermont, 65 FLRA 1023 (2011) (CBP Swanton).  Neither the General Counsel (GC) nor the Charging Party properly filed an opposition to the Respondent’s motion.[1]   Section 2429.17 of the Authority’s Regulations permits a party that can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of an Authority final decision or order.  For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Respondent has failed to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  Accordingly, we deny the Respondent’s motion.   II.            Decision in CBP Swanton                   As relevant here, in CBP Swanton, the Authority found that the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) by failing to comply with a final and binding arbitration award that had directed the Respondent to fully reinstate an employee (the affected employee) to perform Border Patrol Agent duties (agent duties) while he underwent a periodic reinvestigation (PRI).  See 65 FLRA at 1029.  With regard to the GC’s request for a nationwide posting signed by the highest official of the Respondent, the Authority stated:   The Judge found, and there is no dispute, that the Respondent’s national [headquarters (HQ)] directed the Respondent not to assign agent duties to the affected employee upon his reinstatement. . . .  In addition, the Respondent does not address, and thus does not oppose, the GC’s request for a nationwide posting signed by the highest official of the Respondent’s national office.    Id. at 1030.  Accordingly, the Authority granted the GC’s request for a nationwide posting signed by the Chief of the Border Patrol (Chief).  See id.   III.          Respondent’s Motion   The Respondent argues that extraordinary circumstances warrant reconsideration of the Authority’s Order to post a nationwide notice signed by the Chief.  According to the Respondent, it is inappropriate to require the Chief to sign the notice because HQ’s decision to keep the affected employee from performing agent duties “was based upon information [that HQ] received from [the Respondent’s Office of Internal Affairs], and not a decision [that HQ] made independently.”  Motion at 3.  In addition, the Respondent contends that a nationwide posting is inappropriate because:  (1) the ULP involved the discipline of only one employee; (2) HQ did not independently decide to not restore the affected employee to agent duties; (3) there is no indication that HQ’s decision “reflects national policy”; and (4) HQ “had no control over the requirement” that the affected employee pass a PRI before he could perform agent duties.  Id. at 5.  Finally, the Respondent requests that the Authority stay the order to post the notice until the Authority rules on the motion for reconsideration.  See id. at 6.   IV.          Analysis and Conclusions        &n