Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Department of the Navy and Bremerton Metal Trades Council (Authority decision, March 26, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the grievant's exceptions without reviewing the arbitrator's award. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

A Puget Sound Naval Shipyard employee filed exceptions to an arbitration award involving the shipyard and the Bremerton Metal Trades Council. The Authority found that only the union and the shipyard had participated as parties in the arbitration. Its rules permitted a party to the arbitration, rather than the individual grievant in this case, to file exceptions. The Authority dismissed the employee's exceptions without deciding whether the arbitrator's award was correct.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Party requirement for filing exceptions to an arbitration award.
• Outcome: Grievant's exceptions dismissed for lack of party status.
• Key point: Participation as the underlying grievant did not give this employee standing to file exceptions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v14 p159 ]

14:0159(30)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

14 FLRA No. 30

PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD,
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
Activity

and

BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL
Union

Case No. O-AR-704

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Eaton Conant filed by Howard Jackson, the grievant, in the above-entitled case. For the reasons set forth below, the exceptions must be dismissed.

Section 2425.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides:

Either party to arbitration under the provisions of chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code may file an exception to an arbitrator's award rendered pursuant to the arbitration.

Section 2421.11 of the Rules and Regulations provides in pertinent part:

"Party" means (a) any person . . . (4) who participated as a party
. . . (ii) in a matter where the award of an arbitrator was issued. . . .

In this case, it appears that two parties, the Union and the Activity, participated as "parties" in the subject arbitration proceeding. Thus, it does not appear that Mr. Jackson, the grievant, participated as a "party" in the proceeding before the arbitrator. Consequently, the grievant is not entitled to file exceptions to the arbitrator's award under section 2425.1(a) of the Authority's Regulations.

Accordingly, and apart from other consideration, the grievant's exceptions are hereby dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1984

Harold D. Kessler,
Director, Case Management