Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic/Topographic Center, Providence Field Office (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1884, AFL-CIO (Union) (Authority decision, August 22, 1980)

FLRA interlocutory decision. The Authority dismissed these exceptions to an oral arbitrability ruling while the arbitration hearing continued. Orders under 5 U.S.C. § 7122 are generally excluded from judicial review by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) unless they involve an unfair labor practice; this order does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator orally ruled a Defense Mapping Agency grievance procedurally arbitrable, then continued the hearing before issuing a written award. The agency filed exceptions to that interim ruling. The Authority dismissed them without prejudice while the merits hearing remained open, allowing a later challenge after a final arbitration award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Interim exceptions dismissed without prejudice; arbitration continued.
• Key point: The Authority deferred review until the arbitrator completed the case.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v04 p66 ]

04:0066(7)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

4 FLRA No. 7

DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY, HYDROGRAPHIC/
TOPOGRAPHIC CENTER, PROVIDENCE FIELD
OFFICE
(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1884
(Union)

Case No. 0-AR-116

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTIONS TO
ARBITRATOR JEROME S. RUBENSTEIN'S RULING IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE,
WHICH FOUND THE DISPUTED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURALLY ARBITRABLE. FOR THE
REASONS INDICATED BELOW, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTIONS MUST BE DISMISSED.

BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE AGENCY'S SUBMISSION, IT
APPEARS THAT A HEARING ON THE MATTER IN DISPUTE WAS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE
10, 1980, AT WHICH THE GRIEVANCE WAS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE ARBITRATOR
BOTH ON THE ISSUE OF ITS PROCEDURAL ARBITRABILITY, AND ON ITS MERITS.
FOLLOWING THE PARTIES' PRESENTATIONS AT THAT HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF THE
GRIEVANCE'S PROCEDURAL ARBITRABILITY, THE ARBITRATOR MADE AN ORAL RULING
THAT THE MATTER WAS PROCEDURALLY ARBITRABLE (WHICH RULING IS THE SUBJECT
OF THE INSTANT APPEAL). THE PARTIES THEN BEGAN A PRESENTATION OF THE
CASE ON ITS MERITS. HOWEVER, IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT BEFORE THE
PRESENTATION OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS WAS COMPLETED, THE ARBITRATOR
GRANTED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANCE.
IN THIS REGARD, THE AGENCY STATES:

THUS, THERE IS NO WRITTEN AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR ON EITHER THE
PROCEDURAL ARBITRABILITY

ISSUE OR THE MERITS ISSUE . . . ; NOR WILL ONE BE RENDERED UNTIL
SOME TIME AFTER THE

COMPLETION OF THE HEARING ON 26 AUGUST 1980.

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE PARTIES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PRESENTING
BOTH THE PROCEDURAL AND THE MERITS ASPECTS OF THEIR DISPUTE TO THE
ARBITRATOR IN THE COURSE OF A SINGLE PROCEEDING, WITH THE EXPECTATION OF
RECEIVING AN AWARD COVERING BOTH PROCEDURAL AND MERITS ISSUES SOMETIME
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. FURTHER, THE
HEARING'S COMPLETION DATE APPEARS TO BE IMMINENT. THUS, UNDER THESE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE COMMENCED THEIR
PRESENTATION ON THE MERITS TO THE ARBITRATOR, AND HAVE SCHEDULED A DATE
FOR COMPLETING THAT PRESENTATION, IT WOULD NOT EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES
OF THE STATUTE TO CONSIDER, AT THIS TIME, THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATOR'S
RULING LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF PROCEDURAL ARBITRABILITY.

ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, AND APART FROM OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO REFILE ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD ON THE ARBITRABILITY ISSUE (INCLUDING HIS ORAL RULING
IN THIS REGARD IF THE ARBITRABILITY ISSUE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED
IN THE FINAL AWARD) IF IT SO DESIRES, FOLLOWING THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
ON THE MERITS IN THIS MATTER. MOREOVER, NOTHING SHALL PREJUDICE THE
RIGHT OF EITHER PARTY TO FILE EXCEPTIONS TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD ON
THE MERITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY'S RULES, FOLLOWING THE
FINAL AWARD.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C. AUGUST 22, 1980

HAROLD D. KESSLER, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR