Overseas Federation of Teachers and Department of Defense Dependents Schools, Mediterranean Region (Authority decision, June 16, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its order dismissing the union's arbitration exceptions as untimely. 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

The Overseas Federation of Teachers filed exceptions to an arbitration award after the filing deadline, and the Authority dismissed them. The union sought reconsideration, arguing that mail from overseas delayed its receipt of the award and that equitable considerations should extend the deadline. The Authority said equitable tolling might apply in an appropriate case, but the union had 23 days after receiving the award to file on time. It found no extraordinary circumstances and denied reconsideration.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(b); 5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.1(b), 2429.17, 2429.22.
• Outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; dismissal of late arbitration exceptions stands.
• Key point: Overseas mail delay did not justify reconsideration when the union had sufficient time to file after receiving the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p366 ]

32:0366(56)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA NO. 56
32 FLRA 366

Date: 16 JUN 1988

OVERSEAS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
AFT, AFL-CIO

Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS
SCHOOLS, MEDITERRANEAN REGION

Activity

Case No. 0-AR-1429
(29 FLRA 230)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. Statement of the Case

The Overseas Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL - CIO (the Union) filed a motion on October 13, 1987, seeking reconsideration of the Authority's Order of September 29, 1987, which dismissed the Union's exceptions as untimely filed. For the reasons set out below, the Union's motion for reconsideration is denied.

II. Background

The arbitrator's award was dated July 30, 1987, and was served on the Union by mail on the same date. The time limit for filing exceptions to an arbitrator's award is 30 days beginning on the date the award is served on the filing party. 5 U.S.C. 7122(b) and 5 C.F.R. 2425.1(b) (1987). Because the award was served by mail, 5 days are added to the prescribed time period for filing exceptions. 5 C.F.R. 2429.22 (1987). Therefore, to be timely, on September 2, 1987, the Union's exceptions must have been either mailed to the national office of the Authority, or if filed in person, received at the Authority's national office. 5 C.F.R. 2429.21 (1987).

The Union states that due to the unusual circumstances with overseas mail, it received the Arbitrator's award at its office in Verona, Italy on August 10, 1987, 11 days after it was mailed. The Union states that it filed its exceptions within 30 days after the date the Union received the award. The exceptions were postmarked September 9, 1987. The Authority issued its Order on September 29, 1987, dismissing the Union's exceptions as untimely.

III. Union's Motion

The Union asserts that the 30-day period for filing exceptions should have been tolled because of the problems inherent in overseas mailing. The Union also asserts that the Authority erred in its decision in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 476, 27 FLRA 852 (1987) (U.S. HUD). The Union argues that the legislative history of 5 U.S.C. 7122 (b) does not support the Authority's determination in U.S. HUD that the 30-day period for filing exceptions is jurisdictional or that the 30-day period is not subject to equitable considerations like other statutory time periods.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

A party must show that "extraordinary circumstances" warrant reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority. 5 C.F.R. 2429.17 (1987). The Union has failed to establish such circumstances. Our holding in U.S. HUD should not be read to mean that equitable considerations could not be applied to toll the 30-day time period for filing exceptions in an appropriate case. Nonetheless, we find no basis for applying such considerations here.

The Union received the arbitrator's award on August 10, 1987. It had until September 2, 1987, or 23 days, in which to file timely exceptions. In our view, the Union had sufficient opportunity to file timely exceptions despite the amount of time involved in overseas mailing. Therefore, we conclude that the Union filed its exceptions late because of its own internal actions after it received the award.

V. Decision

The Union's motion for reconsideration is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,June 16, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY