United States Government Printing Office and Columbia Typographical Union No. 101-12 (Authority decision, June 11, 1997)

FLRA interlocutory decision. This order dismisses exceptions to an arbitration award because the arbitrator has not resolved the remedy. The dismissal is without prejudice to timely exceptions after a final award. It does not end the underlying arbitration, and this banner does not present a judicial-review period as running from this order.

Plain-English summary

Two Government Printing Office employees grieved the loss of incentive separation payment opportunities. An arbitrator sustained their grievances but directed the parties to develop remedies, retaining authority to decide the remedies if they could not agree. The agency challenged what it characterized as an order to make incentive payments. The Authority found that the arbitrator had ordered no such payments and had not yet decided the remedy. It dismissed the agency's exceptions as premature, without prejudice to filing again after a final arbitration award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Interlocutory arbitration exceptions under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.11.
• Outcome: Agency exceptions dismissed without prejudice; remedy remains unresolved.
• Key point: Exceptions were premature because the arbitration award left the remedy for further determination.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v53 p17 ]
53:0017(4)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

53 FLRA No. 4

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Agency)

and

COLUMBIA TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO.
101-12

(Union)

0-AR-2757

_____

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

June 11, 1997

_____

The Agency filed exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Charles Feigenbaum in the above-entitled case pursuant to section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the exceptions.

As relevant here, the Arbitrator sustained the grievances of two employees who were not offered incentive separation payments as a result of erroneous information provided, or improper actions taken, by Agency representatives. As for the relief available to the grievants, the Arbitrator stated the following in his award:

As was agreed to in a telephone conference call on this date between the Arbitrator and the parties, the parties are directed to develop appropriate remedies for [the] Grievants . . . . The Arbitrator will retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of fashioning a specific award in the event the parties are unable to do so on their own.

Award at 29-30. The Agency filed exceptions to the award claiming that "the decision of the arbitrator ordering it to provide incentive separation payments" violates law and regulation. Agency's Exceptions at 2.

Under section 2429.11 of the Authority's Regulations, the Authority ordinarily will not resolve exceptions to an arbitration award that are interlocutory. An exception is considered interlocutory when there has not been a complete determination of all the issues submitted to arbitration. E.g., U.S. Department of Defense, Army and Air Force Exchange Service and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 977, 38 FLRA 587 (1990); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland and American Federation of Government Employees, SSA General Committee, 34 FLRA 373 (1990). The exceptions in this case are interlocutory.(1)

One of the issues before the Arbitrator was the determination of an appropriate remedy. The Arbitrator found that a remedy was necessary, but did not make an ultimate disposition of that issue. Rather, he ordered the parties to develop an appropriate remedy themselves and stated that he would fashion a remedy only if the parties were unable to do so on their own. Under these circumstances, the award does not contain a complete determination of the remedy issue. E.g., Navy Public Works Center, San Diego, California and National Association of Government Employees, Local R12-35, 27 FLRA 407 (1987); Social Security Administration and Local 3239, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 21 FLRA 22 (1986).

Furthermore, the Arbitrator did not order the Agency to provide incentive separation payments for the grievants. Although the Agency states that the Arbitrator directed such a remedy, the Agency fails to point to anything in the award that supports such a finding. Because the legality of separation incentive payments is not before the Authority in this case, a decision addressing that issue would constitute an advisory opinion. Cf. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 17 FLRA 552 (1985). Section 2429.10 of the Authority's Regulations prohibits the Authority from issuing advisory opinions. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1998 and U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, 48 FLRA 1074 (1993). As a result, there is no need to determine whether there are extraordinary circumstances warranting consideration of the Agency's interlocutory exceptions.

Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to the timely filing of exceptions with the Authority after a final award is rendered by the Arbitrator.(2)

For the Authority.

__________
Edward F. Bachman, Acting
Director
Case Control Office

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

1. The Authority's Case Control Office
   previously advised the Agency that its exceptions appeared to be interlocutory because the Arbitrator had not yet rendered a final award on the entire dispute submitted for arbitration. Accordingly, the Agency was ordered to show cause why its exceptions should not be dismissed as interlocutory or, in the alternative, to show that extraordinary circumstances exist for the Authority to consider the Agency's interlocutory exceptions. The Agency responded to the show cause order.

2. In view of the disposition of the
   exceptions, the Agency's motion that the Authority consider a Comptroller General decision is denied.