AFGE Council 236 and General Services Administration Region 9 (Authority decision, February 28, 1991)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses exceptions to an arbitration award because it lacks jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a). Section 7123(a)(1) generally excludes Authority orders involving arbitral awards from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This order does not resolve an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

GSA suspended a union representative for 30 days for unauthorized use of a government vehicle. An arbitrator found some discipline justified but reduced the suspension to 10 days. The union asked the Authority to review that reduced penalty and the arbitrator's treatment of union representational work. The Authority held that the award still related to the original 30-day suspension, a serious adverse action outside its arbitration-review jurisdiction. It dismissed the exceptions without reaching their merits and noted that review of such awards could be sought in the Federal Circuit.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Jurisdictional exclusion under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(f), 7122(a), 7512.
• Outcome: Union exceptions dismissed; arbitrator's reduction to a 10-day suspension remains undisturbed.
• Key point: Reducing a suspension to 10 days did not give the Authority jurisdiction over an award concerning the original 30-day suspension.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v39 p896 ]
39:0896(78)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

39 FLRA No. 78

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

COUNCIL 236

(Union)

and

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

REGION 9

(Agency)

0-AR-1993

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

February 28, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John B. LaRocco filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's exceptions.

In his award, the Arbitrator reduced the grievant's suspension for 30 days to a suspension for 10 days. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The matter submitted to arbitration concerned the 30-day suspension of the grievant, a Union representative, for use of a Government-owned vehicle for other than official purposes. The Union argued that the issue to be arbitrated should be whether Union representational functions constitute the official business of the Agency and whether the grievant was performing authorized representational functions when he used a Government vehicle. However, the Arbitrator rejected the Union's statement of issue and adopted the Agency's position that the issue concerned the disciplinary matter of the Agency's 30-day suspension of the grievant and whether the suspension was for just cause. The Arbitrator found that because the grievant used the Government vehicle without permission, some discipline was justified. However, he also found that a suspension for 30 days was arbitrary and excessive. Therefore, he ordered that the 30-day suspension be replaced with a 10-day suspension for unauthorized use of a Government-owned vehicle.

III. Union's Exceptions

The Union asserts that the Authority has jurisdiction to review the Union's exceptions because the exceptions do not address the matter of the 30-day suspension but address only that part of the award which concerns the 10-day suspension. The Union maintains that the Arbitrator's imposition of a 10-day suspension is based on a nonfact and is contrary to law, rule or regulation. The Union contends that the Arbitrator failed to decide the main issue in the grievance, which was whether the grievant's use of the vehicle was in connection with a representational matter which was also official Government business.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

We find that the Authority is without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's exceptions.

Section 7122(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Either party to arbitration under this chapter may file with the Authority an exception to any arbitrator's award pursuant to the arbitration (other than an award relating to a matter described in section 7121(f) of this title).

The matters described in section 7121(f) of the Statute include serious adverse actions covered under 5 U.S.C. º 7512, such as suspensions for more than 14 days. See, for example, Social Security Administration, Mid-America Program Service Center, Kansas City, Missouri and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1336, 28 FLRA 955 (1987), request for reconsideration denied 29 FLRA 1324 (1987). Review of arbitration awards relating to such matters, like review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, may be obtained by filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. º 7703.

The Arbitrator's award in this case relates to the 30-day suspension of the grievant. That is a matter covered by 5 U.S.C. º 7512 and is a matter described in section 7121(f) of the Statute. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to consider the Union's exceptions and the exceptions will be dismissed.

V. Order

The Union's exceptions are dismissed.

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