HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.usfed/dflr0071 and id is 1 raw text is:
Decisions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
71 FLRA No. 1
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
ST. PETERSBURG REGIONAL BENEFIT OFFICE
(Agency)
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 1594
(Union)
0-AR-5168
(70 FLRA 1 (2016))
(70 FLRA 586 (2018))
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
February 1, 2019
Before the Authority: Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman,
and Ernest DuBester and James T. Abbott, Members
(Member DuBester dissenting)
I. Statement of the Case
This matter comes before the Authority on the
Union's motion for reconsideration (motion) and request
to stay of the Authority's decision in United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, St. Petersburg Regional
Benefit Office (VA II).1
In VA II, after the Authority had already
remanded the matter for a proper remedy in
United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
St. Petersburg Regional Benefit Office (VA I)2 the
Authority found that Arbitrator Richard John Miller once
again failed to grant an appropriate remedy. Dismissing,
in part, and granting, in part, the Agency's exceptions,
the Authority vacated the remand award.3
Now before us, the Union's motion presents
several arguments. In short, the Union alleges that the
Authority erred in its conclusions of law, by not deferring
to the Arbitrator's various factual findings, and violated
70 FLRA 586 (2018) (Member DuBester dissenting).
2 70 FLRA 1 (2016) (Member Pizzella concurring in part and
dissenting in part).
3 VA II, 70 FLRA at 589.
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)4 by not
remanding the case to the parties for resubmission to the
Arbitrator to fashion an appropriate remedy. Because the
Union fails to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
warranting reconsideration of VA II, we deny the
Union's motion.
II. Background
Because the decisions in VA I and VA II set forth
the facts in detail, we only briefly summarize them here.
The Union originally filed a grievance concerning office
space and access to that office space. The Arbitrator
found that the Agency had violated the parties' agreement
as well as a memorandum of understanding (MOU). In
VA I, the Authority found that the awarded remedy-
ordering the Agency to grant the Union vice president a
personal-identity-verification (PIV) card-was contrary
to law and remanded the case to the parties for
submission to the Arbitrator, absent settlement,
to formulate an appropriate, alternate remedy, if any.5
In VA II, the Authority considered the Agency's
exceptions to the remedy ordered in the remand award-
that the Agency allow the Union vice president to
undergo the PIV-credentialing process. The Authority
found that the Arbitrator's remedy was contrary to an
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memo dated
July 31, 2008 (OPM Memo). Specifically, the Authority
found that its
review of the OPM Memo
does not allow
[the Authority] to go so
far as to permit an
arbitrator to require an
agency to activate the
PIV-credentialing process.
To hold otherwise would
run counter to the very
premise underlying that
process itself-
specifically, that agencies
alone have the discretion
and the authority to
determine which
individuals pose security
risks that warrant not
submitting them to the
6
process.
The Authority dismissed, in part, and granted, in
part, the Agency's exceptions and vacated the remand
4 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
5 VA II, 70 FLRA at 587 (quoting VA I, 70 FLRA at 5).
6Id. at 589.
71 FLRA No. 1
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.usfed/dflr0071&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)