Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Authority decision, September 7, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves exceptions to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) generally does not extend to orders involving arbitral awards unless an order involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This order does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator dismissed a Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard grievance because it was filed after the agreement’s deadline. The union argued that the ruling violated national labor policy and was legally unsupported. The Authority found that these objections only disputed the arbitrator’s application of the contract and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; untimely-grievance award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with a contract filing-date finding did not justify setting aside the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p24 ]

10:0024(8)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 8

PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD
Activity

and

HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL
Union

Case No. O-AR-282

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR TED T. TSUKIYAMA 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.

THE PARTIES SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATOR AN INITIAL ISSUE OF WHETHER
THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS MATTER HAD BEEN TIMELY FILED. THE ARBITRATOR
DETERMINED THAT THE GRIEVANCE HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY FILED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TIME LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, AS HIS AWARD THE ARBITRATOR
DISMISSED THE GRIEVANCE.

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION PRINCIPALLY CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD
VIOLATES NATIONAL LABOR POLICY AND IS NOT LEGALLY SUPPORTABLE. HOWEVER,
THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS CONSTITUTE NOTHING MORE THAN DISAGREEMENT WITH
THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE GRIEVANT'S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARTIES'
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT DISAGREEMENT
WITH AN ARBITRATOR'S DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURAL
ARBITRABILITY OF A GRIEVANCE PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING AN AWARD
DEFICIENT. E.G., DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICIAL OF DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS
AND OVERSEAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, 8 FLRA NO. 21(1982); U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY SERVICE AND NATIONAL
JOINT COUNCIL OF FOOD INSPECTION LOCALS, AFGE, AFL-CIO, 6 FLRA NO.
48(1982). ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 7, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY