Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Treasury Department (Activity) and National Treasury Employees Union, Irwin Solomon, Grievant (Union) (Authority decision, October 31, 1980)

ATF arbitration exceptions dismissed as late (FLRA 0-AR-148)

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-AR-148
Decided
October 31, 1980
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1980, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1980
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. This order concerns exceptions to an arbitration award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), such orders 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 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms challenged an arbitration award dated August 27, 1980. The Authority’s rules required filing exceptions by September 25, but the agency filed on October 1. The Authority explained that it could not extend or waive the deadline. It dismissed the agency’s appeal without considering the award’s merits.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
  • Outcome: Agency exceptions dismissed as untimely; award merits not reviewed.
  • Key point: The agency’s arbitration exceptions arrived after the nonwaivable deadline.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v04 p532 ]

04:0532(71)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

4 FLRA No. 71

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO
AND FIREARMS, U.S. TREASURY
DEPARTMENT
(Activity)

and

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION, IRWIN SOLOMON, GRIEVANT
(Union)

Case No. 0-AR-148

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

ON OCTOBER 1, 1980, THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS (THE
ACTIVITY) FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR COLTMAN D. SHEPARD
IN THE INSTANT CASE WITH THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2425.1 OF
THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. 2425.1 (1980)). FOR THE REASONS
INDICATED BELOW, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE SUBJECT EXCEPTIONS WERE
UNTIMELY FILED AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW.

SECTION 2425.1(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.
2425.1(B)(1980)) PROVIDES:

THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING AN EXCEPTION TO AN ARBITRATION AWARD IS
THIRTY (30) DAYS

BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF THE AWARD.

THE SUBJECT ARBITRATION AWARD, AS INCLUDED IN THE ACTIVITY'S
SUBMISSION, IS DATED AUGUST 27, 1980. THEREFORE, UNDER SECTION
2425.1(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS, THE ACTIVITY'S EXCEPTIONS WERE
DUE IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUTHORITY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 25, 1980.
HOWEVER, AS STATED ABOVE, THE SUBJECT EXCEPTIONS WERE NOT FILED WITH THE
AUTHORITY UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 1980. IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY IS NOT
EMPOWERED TO EXTEND OR WAIVE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO
ARBITRATORS' AWARDS.

ACCORDINGLY, AS THE ACTIVITY'S EXCEPTIONS WERE UNTIMELY FILED, AND
APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE ACTIVITY'S APPEAL IS HEREBY
DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON,D.C., OCTOBER 31, 1980

HAROLD D. KESSLER, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

COPIES OF THE AUTHORITY'S ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE MAILED THIS DATE
TO THE FOLLOWING:

MR. MICHAEL SITCOV

STAFF ATTORNEY

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20226

MR. DAVID HANDSHER

ASSISTANT COUNSEL

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

209 POST STREET, SUITE 1112

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace