Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans, Louisiana and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1124 (Authority decision, March 26, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on exceptions to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Orders involving arbitral awards generally are excluded from judicial review by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator found that the Army Engineer District lacked just cause for a two-day suspension but could issue a lesser warning for the employee's disruptive conduct. After the agency pointed out that a warning could not be placed in the employee's personnel folder under the contract, the arbitrator clarified that he intended a reprimand, which could be filed there. NFFE Local 1124 challenged the clarification as beyond the arbitrator's authority and unfair. The Authority held that the statute and agreements did not bar this clarification and that the union had not shown bias or prejudice. It denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; clarified reprimand award sustained.
• Key point: An arbitrator may clarify an issued award when no governing limit bars the clarification and it reflects the original intent.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p315 ]

17:0315(44)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 44

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Activity

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1124
Union

Case No. O-AR-673

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to a clarified award of Arbitrator John F. Caraway 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 dispute in this matter concerns the Arbitrator's clarification of his award. The issue submitted to arbitration was whether there was just cause for the Activity's suspension of the grievant for two days for disruptive conduct. The Arbitrator determined that there were mitigating circumstances involved and concluded that while the Activity did not have just cause to suspend the grievant, it had just cause to issue a "letter of warning" for the misconduct. The Arbitrator therefore essentially directed the Activity to rescind the suspension and place a "letter of warning" in the grievant's official personnel folder (OPF). The Activity subsequently requested the Arbitrator to clarify the intent of his award, pointing out that under the pertinent provision of the parties' agreement, a "letter of warning" could not be placed in an employee's OPF and that a "letter of reprimand" could be so filed. In reply, the Arbitrator advised the parties that the intent of his award was that a "letter of reprimand" be issued and placed in the grievant's personnel folder.

In its first two exceptions, the Union contends that the Arbitrator's award as clarified is contrary to law and the parties' agreement and that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority. More specifically, the Union argues that under sections 7121 and 7122 of the Statute and a corresponding provision of the agreement, the Arbitrator's award was final when issued, subject only to subsequent action by the Authority upon the filing of exceptions by a party to the case, and, therefore, that the Arbitrator was without authority to clarify the award once it was issued. However, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award as clarified is deficient as alleged. Neither section 7121 nor section 7122 prohibits the correction or clarification of an award by an arbitrator subsequent to its issuance. Additionally, the Union has failed to establish that there was any express limitation in the parties' collective bargaining agreement, or in any other formal agreement such as a grievance submission agreement, on the authority of the Arbitrator to clarify the intent of his award after it was issued. Moreover, contrary to the Union's assertions, an arbitrator's authority is not always immediately terminated upon issuance of an award. Rather, it is generally recognized that an arbitrator has the authority to correct or clarify an award in a number of circumstances. See Audie L. Murphy Veterans Administration Hospital, San Antonio, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3511, 15 FLRA No. 60 (1984); La Vale Plaza, Inc., v. R.S. Noonan, Inc., 378 F.2d 569 (3rd Cir. 1967); O. Fairweather, Practice and Procedure in Labor Arbitration, 579-83 (2d ed. 1983).

In its third exception, the Union argues that it was denied a fair hearing and that the Arbitrator was biased in favor of management in the clarification process. However, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to substantiate that it was denied a fair hearing or that the Arbitrator was biased in this case. Thus, the Union has failed to establish that the Activity's request for clarification of the remedy it was directed to implement was in any way improper or that the Arbitrator's clarification resulted in any prejudice to any rights of the Union in this matter. It is clear that the Arbitrator's clarification conforms to his originally expressed intent to document the grievant's misconduct in her personnel folder and that the award as clarified was based on the testimony and evidence presented by the parties prior to the clarification. Consequently, the Union's assertions in support of this exception provide no basis for finding the clarified award deficient. E.g., Veterans Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 997, 8 FLRA 238 (1982).

In its fourth exception, the Union alleges that the Arbitrator's clarification was untimely because it was issued after the date assigned by the American Arbitration Association for the issuance of an award in this matter. However, it is clear that the award was rendered before the assigned date. Moreover, even assuming that the date was also applicable to any post-award clarification, the Union's exception provides no basis for finding an award deficient under section 7122(a) of the Statute. Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL-CIO, 7 FLRA 544, 547 (1982). See also, Fairweather, supra, at 569-70, 621-23.

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1985 Henry B. Frazier, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY