Royal C. Johnson Veterans Memorial Hospital, Sioux Falls, South Dakota and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1509 (Authority decision, November 3, 1988)

Sioux Falls veterans hospital (FLRA 0-AR-1596): Late attempt to correct exceptions

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-AR-1596
Decided
November 3, 1988
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-04

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1988, 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 1988
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. The Authority dismisses the union's arbitration exceptions because its attempt to correct filing deficiencies missed an express deadline. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), an order involving an arbitral award is generally excluded from judicial review unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1509 filed exceptions to an arbitration award involving the Royal C. Johnson Veterans Memorial Hospital in Sioux Falls. The Authority identified filing deficiencies and ordered the union to submit the missing information by October 26, 1988. The union's attempted correction was dated and postmarked October 27, and the Authority received it October 28. Because it missed the deadline set in the order, the Authority dismissed the exceptions without reaching the award's merits.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Arbitration exception filing rules in former 5 C.F.R. Parts 2425 and 2429.
  • Outcome: Union's exceptions dismissed after its attempted correction arrived late.
  • Key point: A correction submitted after the Authority's express deadline did not cure the exceptions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v33 p819 ]
33:0819(92)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

33 FLRA No. 92

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ROYAL C. JOHNSON VETERANS MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL

SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1509

0-AR-1596

ORDER

On October 19, 1988, the Authority issued an Order granting the Union an opportunity to correct certain deficiencies in its exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John W. Gradwohl. Procedural review of the Union's exceptions indicated that the appeal failed to meet certain of the requirements of the Authority's Rules and Regulations governing exceptions to an Arbitrator's award. 5 C.F.R. Parts 2425 and 2429.

The Authority's Order of October 19th stated in pertinent part:

The Union's submission must be received in the
National Office of the Authority (Director, Case Control Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Room 213, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20424) no later than close of business October 26, 1988. The Union has been orally notified of the information necessary to be filed, and of the time limit for doing so.

. . . . . . .

Failure to comply with the Authority's rules of procedure within the time limit provided may result in dismissal of the Union's exceptions.

The Union's attempted cure of the deficiencies in its exceptions is dated and postmarked October 27, 1988, and was received by the Authority on October 28, 1988. Thus, the Union has failed to comply with the express time limit stated in the Authority's Order of October 19, 1988.

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are
dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

______
Clyde B. Blandford, Jr.

Acting Executive Director

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

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