U.S. Department of the Army, Tooele Army Depot and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Tooele Federal Lodge 2261 (Authority decision, November 27, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses an employee's exceptions to an arbitration award for lack of standing. This is an order concerning an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to such an order unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

An employee at Tooele Army Depot personally filed exceptions to an arbitration award. Authority rules allowed a party to the arbitration to file exceptions. The union's letter confirmed that it had represented the employee in the grievance and arbitration, but said only that it had no objection to his filing exceptions. The Authority found no evidence that the employee had participated as a party or that the union had authorized him to file for it. It dismissed his exceptions without reaching the award's merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration party and exception rules under 5 C.F.R. §§ 2421.11(a)(4)(ii) and 2425.1(a).
• Outcome: Employee's exceptions dismissed for lack of standing.
• Key point: A union's lack of objection did not establish that an employee could file arbitration exceptions as a party or on the union's behalf.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v38 p454 ]
38:0454(45)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

38 FLRA NO. 45

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT
TOOELE, UTAH
(Agency)

and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS TOOELE FEDERAL LODGE 2261 (Union)

0-AR-2008

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

November 27, 1990

The grievant, Mr. Duane L. Madill, filed exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John R. Taylor in the above-captioned case. On October 26, 1990, the Authority directed Mr. Madill to show cause why his exceptions should not be dismissed for lack of standing as a party to file exceptions. Mr. Madill filed a timely response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out below, Mr. Madill's exceptions must be dismissed.

The Authority's Regulations provide that "(e)ither party (emphasis added)" to an arbitration proceeding "may file an exception to an arbitrator's award rendered pursuant to the arbitration." 5 C.F.R. 2425.1(a). A "party" in the context of an arbitration proceeding is defined as "any person ... who participated as a party ... in a matter where the award of an arbitrator was issued...." 5 C.F.R. 2421.11(a)(4) (ii).

The Arbitrator's award indicates that the parties to the arbitration proceeding were the Agency, represented by James R. Tanner, and the Union, represented by Dale R. Loveless.

In the Authority's Order to Show Cause, Mr. Madill was directed to provide evidence that he participated as a "party" in the proceeding or that he was authorized by the Union to file the exceptions in the above-captioned case. In his response to the Authority's Order, Mr. Madill enclosed a letter from the Union (Dale R. Loveless) dated November 7, 1990, addressed "to whom it may concern." The letter states that the Union represented Mr. Madill through the grievance process and the arbitration. The letter also states that the "Union does not feel further appeal is merited" but that the Union has "no objection to Mr. Madill proceeding with his exceptions." There is nothing in the letter that clearly shows that Mr. Madill either participated as a "party" in the proceeding before the Arbitrator, or was authorized by the Union to file the exceptions presently before the Authority.

Accordingly, Mr. Madill's exceptions are dismissed for lack of standing as a party to file exceptions in the above-captioned case.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office