U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 777 (Authority decision, June 13, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied exceptions to an arbitration award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review of an arbitration order is generally excluded by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) unless it involves an unfair labor practice under § 7118. This decision does not address an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator found that the union missed the grievance filing limits in its labor agreement and that the employer had not waived them. He dismissed the grievance as not arbitrable. The union said those findings conflicted with its evidence. The Authority treated that argument as disagreement with the arbitrator’s procedural findings and denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exception review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; award finding the grievance untimely remained in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with contract filing findings did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p181 ]

12:0181(45)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 45

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES
(Activity)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL No. 777
(Union)

Case No. O-AR-412

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator William S. Rule filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

The Arbitrator determined that the grievance was not processed in a timely manner by the Union in accordance with the time limitations specified in the parties' collective bargaining agreement and that there had been no valid waiver of the time limits. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator held that the grievance was not arbitrable.

In its exception, the Union contends that the Arbitrator's findings and conclusion were contrary to the facts and evidence presented by the Union. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, including the parties' contentions, the Authority concludes that the Union's exception constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings and conclusion regarding compliance with the procedural requirements of the parties' collective bargaining agreement and provides no basis for finding the award deficient. E.g., Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, 10 FLRA No. 8 (1982).

Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., June 13, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY