U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476 (Authority decision, August 4, 1989)

HUD and AFGE Local 476 (FLRA 0-AR-1741): Late arbitration exceptions dismissed

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-AR-1741
Decided
August 4, 1989
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 1989, 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 1989
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 agency's arbitration exceptions as untimely, leaving the award in place. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to an order involving an arbitral award unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116.

Plain-English summary

HUD filed exceptions to an April 19, 1989 arbitration award. Assuming the award was mailed that day, the deadline with the five-day mail allowance was May 23. HUD's exceptions and its own statement of mailing were dated May 24. The agency did not respond to an order to show cause, and the Authority dismissed its exceptions as untimely without reviewing the award.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Exception deadline and mail allowance under former 5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.1(b) and 2429.22.
  • Outcome: HUD's exceptions dismissed as untimely.
  • Key point: The agency's stated mailing date was one day beyond the filing deadline.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v33 p883 ]
33:0883(126)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

33 FLRA No. 126

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C.

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 476

0-AR-1741

ORDER TO DISMISS

August 4, 1989

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Agency) has filed exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan in the above-referenced case. On July 14, 1989, the Authority directed the Agency to show cause why its exceptions should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The Agency has not filed a response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out below, the Agency's exceptions are untimely and must be dismissed.

The time limit for filing exceptions to an arbitration award is 30 days beginning on the date the award is served on the filing party. 5 C.F.R. § 2425.1(b). The date of service is the date the arbitration award is deposited in the U.S. mail or is delivered in person. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27(d). Absent evidence to the contrary, the date of the arbitration award is presumed to be the date of service of the award. See Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 916, 32 FLRA 165, 167 (1988). If the award is served by mail, 5 days are added to the period for filing exceptions to the award. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.22. The time limit may not be extended or waived by the Authority. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d).

The Arbitrator's award is dated April 19, 1989. Presuming that the award was deposited in the U.S. mail on that date, an exception to the award had to be either postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or received in person at the Authority no later than May 23, 1989, in order to be considered timely. 5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.1(b), 2429.21(b) and 2429.22. However, the Agency's exceptions are dated May 24, 1989. Further, in its statement of service which accompanied the exceptions, the Agency represented that the exceptions were mailed to the Authority on May 24, 1989.

The Agency's exceptions were not timely filed and the Agency has not responded to the Authority's Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are dismissed.

For the Authority.

_______
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