Department of the Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Kelly Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1617 (Authority decision, June 29, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed exceptions to an arbitration award as untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(b). Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to an order involving an arbitral award unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator issued an award in a dispute involving Kelly Air Force Base and AFGE Local 1617. After the parties sought clarification, he explained his intended remedy but did not change the award. The Air Force filed exceptions months after the deadline measured from the original award, arguing that the clarification started a new filing period. The Authority found that the later explanation created no new deficiency to challenge. It dismissed the exceptions as untimely without reviewing the award's merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exception deadline under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(b).
• Outcome: Agency exceptions dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: An explanation that did not modify the award did not restart the filing period.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v15 p200 ]

15:0200(36)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

15 FLRA No. 36

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1617
Union

Case No. O-AR-675

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Joe D. Woodward filed by the Department of the Air Force (the Agency) on behalf of the Activity pursuant to section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and section 2425.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. For the reasons stated below, it has been determined that the Agency's exceptions must be dismissed as untimely filed.

The Arbitrator's award in this case is dated June 14, 1983, and appears to have been served on the parties by mail on the same day. A dispute subsequently arose concerning the Agency's compliance with a portion of the award. In September 1983, the parties requested clarification of that part of the award from the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator responded on October 28, 1983, stating, among other things, that it appeared that his June 14 award was clear, concise and not open to misinterpretation and rejecting the Agency's interpretation of the disputed portion of the award. However, the Arbitrator also provided further explanation of the intent of the remedy he had ordered. The Agency then filed the instant exceptions with the Authority on November 28, 1983.

Under section 7122(b) of the Statute, as amended, /1/ and section 2425.1(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as amended, /2/ which amendments are applicable to exceptions pending or filed with the Authority on or after March 2, 1984, and under sections 2429.21 and 2429.22 of the Rules and Regulations, which are also applicable to computation of the time limit here involved, any exceptions to the Arbitrator's award of June 14, 1983 had to be filed with the Authority by the close of business on July 18, 1983. Thus, it immediately and clearly appears that the exceptions filed by the Agency on November 28, 1983 are untimely. However, the Agency asserts that since its exceptions were filed within 30 days of the date of the Arbitrator's clarification they should be considered timely.

As the Agency recognizes, the Authority has held in the particular circumstances of a case where the arbitrator, in response to a clarification request, modified his award in such a way as to give rise to alleged deficiencies, that the time limit for filing exceptions began with the modified award. /3/ In this case, however, it is clear that in his clarification of October 28 the Arbitrator did not modify his award of June 14, 1983 so as to give rise to the deficiencies alleged in the Agency's exceptions. Rather, as indicated above, the Arbitrator essentially found that the Agency has misinterpreted the award and while he provided some further explanation of the intent of the remedy that had been ordered, he did not modify it. Thus, the Agency in essence is seeking Authority review of the June 14, 1983 award and the exceptions filed on November 28, 1983 therefore are clearly untimely.

Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are hereby dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1984
Harold D. Kessler, Director, Case
Management

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ Section 7122(b) of the Statute was amended by the Civil Service Miscellaneous Amendments Act of 1983 (Pub. L. No. 98-224, Sec. 4, 98 Stat. 47, 48 (1984) to provide that the 30-day period for filing exceptions to an arbitrator's award begins on the date the award is served on the filing party.

/2/ 49 Fed.Reg. 22623 (1984).

/3/ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District Office and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1911, 6 FLRA 401, 403 n.2 (1981).