Navy Public Works Center, San Diego and NAGE Local R12-35 (Authority decision, June 12, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. This order resolves only the Navy's current exceptions. The Authority dismisses the Navy's exceptions as interlocutory without prejudice to renewal after the arbitrator issues a final award. The underlying overtime remedy remains unresolved. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator found that the San Diego Navy Public Works Center had failed to maintain and post overtime charts as its agreement required. He directed the parties to work out disputed overtime claims and retained jurisdiction to resolve the remedy if necessary. The Navy filed exceptions before that remedy was determined. The Authority dismissed them as premature because the arbitrator had not made a final award on the whole dispute. The Navy could renew its contentions after a final award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Interlocutory arbitration exceptions under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.11.
• Outcome: Exceptions dismissed without prejudice; arbitration remedy still pending.
• Key point: An interim liability ruling with the remedy unresolved was not ready for Authority review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p407 ]

27:0407(57)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 57

NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER,
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Activity

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R12-35
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1330

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator William S. Rule filed on behalf of the Activity pursuant to section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and section 2425.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. For the reason stated below, it has been determined that the exceptions must be dismissed as interlocutory.

The record indicates that the Arbitrator determined that the issues to be resolved were (1) whether the grievance was arbitrable; (2) If so, whether the Activity violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by failing to properly maintain overtime charts and post them in all work centers during a specified period of time and (3) If so, what is the appropriate remedy? The Arbitrator found that the grievance was arbitrable and that the Activity's conduct violated the parties' agreement. However, the Arbitrator expressly declined to make a complete and definitive award as to the appropriate remedy because the record was apparently incomplete. In this respect, the Arbitrator provided instructions to the parties and ordered them to enter into a series of meetings to settle the disputed overtime claims. If the parties could not reach agreement, they were directed to resubmit the dispute to the Arbitrator by written brief unless the parties or the Arbitrator decided a hearing or hearings would be more appropriate. Further, the Arbitrator directed the parties, upon narrowing the number of overtime claimants, to attempt to agree on a monetary settlement because he considered a monetary award the only appropriate remedy. Finally, the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction for ninety (90) days and such additional periods of time as may be necessary to see that all claims pending are finally resolved.

Section 2429.11 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides: "The Authority . . . ordinarily will not consider interlocutory appeals." That is, the Authority ordinarily will not consider an appeal until a final decision has been rendered on the entire proceeding.

In this case, it is clear that the Arbitrator has not yet rendered a final award on the entire dispute in this case. Rather, the record shows that the Arbitrator issued an interim award regarding two of the issues before him, i.e., whether the matter was arbitrable and whether the Activity violated the parties' agreement and he expressly declined to make a final disposition as to the remedy in the dispute. Thus, the Activity's exceptions are considered interlocutory and the facts and circumstances are not such as to warrant review of the exceptions at this time. See Social Security Administration and Local 3239, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 21 FLRA No. 3 (1986), slip op. at 22.

Accordingly, since the Activity's exceptions are interlocutory and Authority review is not warranted under the circumstances, the exceptions are hereby dismissed. However, the dismissal is without prejudice to the renewal of any of the Activity's contentions in exceptions duly filed with the Authority after a final award is rendered by the Arbitrator.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 12, 1987.
/s/ Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management