Department of the Army, U.S. Army Training Center Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood (Activity) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-32 (Union) (Authority decision, June 2, 1981)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses these exceptions because a removal award covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f) is outside its review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a). Section 7121(f) provides a separate judicial review route under 5 U.S.C. § 7703 for qualifying awards.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator rejected a timeliness challenge to an Army employee’s removal and returned the grievance for further processing. The union asked the Authority to reverse the removal. The Authority held that removal awards fall under section 7121(f), outside its exceptions jurisdiction under section 7122, and dismissed the filing.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7121(f), 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a), 5 U.S.C. § 7512.
• Outcome: Union exceptions dismissed for lack of Authority jurisdiction.
• Key point: The removal dispute followed the separate statutory review route even though the award addressed a procedural issue.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p7 ]

06:0007(4)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 4

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
U.S. ARMY TRAINING CENTER
ENGINEERING AND FORT
LEONARD WOOD
Activity

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R14-32
Union

Case No. O-AR-155

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR WILLIAM STIX FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7122(A)).
FOR THE REASONS THAT FOLLOW, THE AUTHORITY IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS AND THEY ACCORDINGLY MUST BE DISMISSED.

SECTION 7122(A) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:

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).

AS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, THE MATTERS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7121(F) OF
THE STATUTE INCLUDE THOSE COVERED UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7512 WHICH, IN TURN,
SETS FORTH SPECIFIED ADVERSE ACTIONS INCLUDING REMOVALS. PURSUANT TO
SECTION7131(F), REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD RELATING TO SUCH MATTERS
MAY BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5 U.S.C. 7703 WHICH PROVIDES FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
AND UNDER SECTION 7121(F) APPLIES TO THE AWARD OF AN ARBITRATOR AS IF
THE MATTER HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THAT BOARD.

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD IN THIS CASE, THE UNION CONCEDES THAT
THE "AWARD INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF AN EMPLOYEE," A MATTER SET FORTH IN 5
U.S.C. 7512. NEVERTHELESS, THE UNION MAINTAINS THAT THE AUTHORITY IS
NOT PRECLUDED FROM PROCESSING ITS EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL BUT INSTEAD
ONLY ADDRESSES PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS. IN THIS RESPECT, THE
ARBITRATOR DETERMINED THAT THE ACTIVITY'S REMOVAL ACTION WOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT AS UNTIMELY. THE ARBITRATOR ALSO
ORDERED THE GRIEVANCE REMANDED TO STEP 3 OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE UNION HAD ONLY ARGUED PROCEDURAL MATTERS AT THAT
STEP, AND HE RETAINED JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANCE
IF NECESSARY. THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD PERTAIN TO THE
ARBITRATOR'S REFUSAL TO OVERTURN THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL AS PROCEDURALLY
DEFICIENT, AND THE RELIEF REQUESTED IS THAT THE AUTHORITY REVERSE THE
GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL.

THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THIS AWARD, BY RESOLVING THE MATTER OF THE
PROCEDURAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL AND AS TO WHICH THE
UNION SEEKS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY REVERSE THAT REMOVAL, RELATES TO A
MATTER COVERED BY 5 U.S.C. 7512 AND THEREFORE IS AN AWARD AS TO WHICH
EXCEPTIONS MAY NOT BE FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
THE STATUTE AND SECTION 2425.3(B)(2) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2425.3(B)(2)). CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUTHORITY HAS NO
BASIS ON WHICH TO REVIEW THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD.

ACCORDINGLY, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE UNION'S
EXCEPTIONS ARE ORDERED DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 2, 1981

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY