U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2403 (Authority decision, August 17, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses exceptions to an arbitral award, ending its review of the award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a). Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), an order involving an arbitral award generally is excluded from judicial review unless it involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Department of Housing and Urban Development filed exceptions to an arbitrator's award. The Authority ordered HUD to explain by July 30, 1990, why its exceptions should not be dismissed as late. HUD responded on August 2 without requesting an extension or showing extraordinary circumstances. The Authority found that the representative's leave did not explain why the one page response could not have been filed on time. It dismissed HUD's exceptions without reaching the arbitration dispute.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Agency exceptions dismissed after an untimely response to a show cause order.
• Key point: The representative's leave did not excuse failure to meet the Authority's response deadline.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v36 p702 ]
36:0702(72)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

36 FLRA No. 72

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2403

(Union)

0-AR-1960

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

August 17, 1990

On July 19, 1990 the Authority issued an Order directing the Agency to show cause why its exceptions to the award of Arbitrator George G. Brudney in the above-captioned case should not be dismissed as untimely. The Authority's Order stated that the Agency's response must be filed by July 30, 1990, and that failure to comply with the Order will result in dismissal of the Agency's exceptions.

The Agency filed its response to the Authority's Order on August 2, 1990. 1 The Agency did not request an extension of time to file its response to the Authority's Order and has not asserted or established any extraordinary circumstances warranting review of its response. The Agency's representative asserts only that as he was on leave from July 20 to July 27, 1990, he was "again ... not able to act on the Authority's Order

in a timely fashion(.)" The [PAGE] Agency's representative does not establish, however, that its response, consisting of one page, could not have been timely filed (for example, being deposited in the U.S. Mail) on July 30, 1990.

The Agency has failed to comply with the express time limit stated in the Authority's Order of July 19, 1990. Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are dismissed.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna

Director, Case Control Office

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