National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-109 and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Newington, Connecticut (Authority decision, January 23, 1998)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving 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 the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision resolves exceptions to an arbitration award and does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

NAGE Local R1-109 challenged a supplemental arbitration award involving the VA Medical Center in Newington. The agency argued that defects in the union's service of its exceptions required dismissal. The Authority considered the exceptions because the agency received them, filed a timely opposition, and showed no prejudice; the union also corrected its statement of service. On the merits, the Authority found no ground under section 7122(a) for setting aside the supplemental award and denied the exceptions. The decision does not describe the underlying grievance or the award's terms.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a); service rule in 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27(a)-(c).
• Outcome: Service objection rejected; union's exceptions denied and supplemental award left in place.
• Key point: Corrected service defects did not bar review where the agency received the exceptions and suffered no prejudice.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v53 p1182 ]
53:1182(96)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

53 FLRA No. 96

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R1-109

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

MEDICAL CENTER

NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT

(Agency)

0-AR-2909

_____

DECISION

January 23, 1998

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S. Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to a supplemental award of Arbitrator David P. Twomey 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 Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.(*)

Under section 7122(a) of the Statute, an award is deficient if it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on any of the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in section 7122(a).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

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

*/ The Agency asserts that the Union's
exceptions should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of section 2429.27(a)-(c) of the Authority's Regulations because: (1) the exceptions were served by regular mail; (2) the statement of service was not signed; and (3) the statement of service did not specify the manner of service. However, we find that the Agency has not been prejudiced by the Union's manner of service because it concedes that the Union served it with a copy of the exceptions and it filed a timely opposition to the exceptions. Moreover, the Union filed a corrected statement of service with the Authority. Therefore, we find that the Union's exceptions are properly before the Authority. See, e.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2006 and Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 52 FLRA 380, 384 (1996); see also U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Audit Service, Southeast Region and National Federation of Federal Employees, 44 FLRA 717 n.1 (1992) (failure to provide opposing party with statement of service was not a basis for dismissing application for review); Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., 39 FLRA 1568, 1572-73 (1991) (failure to specify manner of service did not warrant dismissal of exceptions) vacated as to other matters, 963 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1992), remand, 47 FLRA 1091 (1993).