FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • 29:1035(74)CA - AFGE, LOCAL 2047 VS DOD, GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER

29:1035(74)CA - AFGE, LOCAL 2047 VS DOD, GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER


[ v29 p1035 ]
29:1035(74)CA
The decision of the Authority follows: 

29 FLRA NO. 74

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

                   Respondent

         and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2047

                   Charging Party

Case Nos. 34-CA-50359
    (28 FLRA No. 25)

ORDER DISMISSING MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH ORDER

This case is before the Authority on motions filed by the Respondent Agency seeking: (1) "clarification" of the Authority's Decision and Order of July 23, 1987 in 28 FLRA No. 25, finding that certain conduct of the Respondent was violative of the Statute; and (2) an extension to comply with the Authority's Order until seven days after the Agency receives the Authority's ruling on its notion for clarification. The Charging Party filed a response in opposition to the Agency's notions. For the reason set forth below, the Respondent's notions for clarification and for extension to comply with the Authority's Order of July 23, 1987, must be dismissed.

The Agency's motion for clarification requests that the Authority: (1) correct errors in the Order of July 23, 1987, wherein inadvertent references are made to the "Veterans Administration" rather than to the "Defense Logistics Agency, Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia", and to the "Administrator& rather than to the "Commander of the Defense General Supply Center"; and (2) delete paragraph 2(b) of the Order requiring compliance with the arbitration award in Case Nos. 84 FSIP 135 and 136.

Without passing upon whether the Authority's Rules and Regulations generally may be used to seek clarification of the Authority's final orders, it is noted that the Authority already has issued a second corrected copy of its Decision and Order of July 23, 1987 in 28 FLRA No. 25 deleting all references to the "Veterans Administration" and to the "Administrator." To the extent that the Agency's motion for clarification and notion for extension to comply with the Authority's Order are requests for reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order under section 2429.17 of the Rules, they were untimely filed and must be dismissed.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides in pertinent part:

2429.17 Reconsideration.

After a final decision or order of the Authority has been issued, a party to the proceeding before the Authority who can establish in its moving papers extraordinary circumstances for so doing may move for reconsideration of such final decision or order. The motion shall be filed within ten (10) days after service of the Authority's decision or order. . . .

The Authority's Decision and order was dated and served on the Agency by mail on July 23, 1987. Therefore, under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations as well as sections 2429.21(b) 1 and 2429.22 which also are applicable to computation of the time limit here involved, the Agency's notions in order to be timely filed had to be either mailed to the national office of the Authority in Washington, D.C., and postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service no later than August 10, 1987, or if filed in person, received at the Authority's national office no later than the close of business on the same date. However, if no postmark date is evident on a mailing, the Authority's Rules require the presumption that it was mailed five days prior to receipt. See Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Muskogee, Oklahoma, 29 FLRA No. 5 (1987).

Respondent's motions dated August 17, 1987, were received by the Authority on August 20, 1987. As no postmark date is evident on the "Official Business" envelope containing the motions, it is presumed that the motion was mailed on August 15, 1987--five days prior to receipt by the Authority. Therefore, as the Respondent's notions were due August 10, 1987, but not filed until August 15, 1987, they were untimely and must be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, and apart from other considerations, the Respondent's motions for clarification and for extension to comply with the Authority's Order of July 23, 1987, must be dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., October 20, 1987. 

Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management

 

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 Section 2429.21(b) of the Rules and Regulations, applicable to motions for reconsideration filed with the Authority on or after December 31, 1986, provides in pertinent part: 2429.21 Computation of time for filing papers. (b) Except when filing an unfair labor practice charge . . . , a representation petition . . . , and a request for extension of time . . . , when this subchapter requires the filing of any paper with the Authority . . . , the date of filing shall be determined by the date of mailing indicated by the postmark date. If no postmark date is evident on the mailing, it shall be presumed to have been mailed 5 days prior to receipt. If the filing is by personal delivery, it shall be considered filed on the date it is received by the Authority . . . .