Veterans Administration Medical Center Sepulveda and AFGE Local 1697 (Authority decision, March 19, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves exceptions to an arbitration 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

The Authority had dismissed exceptions to an arbitration award partly because it thought the grievant lacked authority to file them for the union. In this supplemental order, it accepted proof that he was authorized and reversed that part of its reasoning. The exceptions still failed because the union filed them on August 31, after the July 30 deadline measured from service of the June 26 award. The arbitrator's limited statement about retaining jurisdiction did not extend that deadline.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exception filing deadline under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(b) and 5 C.F.R. § 2425.1(b).
• Outcome: Prior dismissal amended to rest on untimely filing.
• Key point: Limited retention of arbitral jurisdiction did not postpone the deadline to file exceptions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p237 ]

17:0237(35)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 35

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, SEPULVEDA
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1697, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. O-AR-834
(16 FLRA No. 12)

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

On September 24, 1984, the Authority issued an Order dismissing the exceptions in the above-captioned case because, among other things, it appeared that the exceptions were filed by the grievant and that the grievant was not a party in the proceeding before the Arbitrator and, therefore, was not entitled to file the exceptions under section 2425.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the exceptions were denied. The grievant subsequently filed a submission establishing that he was authorized to file the exceptions on behalf of the Union. Accordingly, the conclusion that the grievant was not entitled to file the exceptions is hereby reversed.

However, apart from that consideration, the Union's exceptions are otherwise procedurally deficient as untimely filed and, therefore, the Order of September 24, 1984, is hereby amended to explicitly dismiss the exceptions on that basis.

The Arbitrator's award is dated June 26, 1984, and appears to have been served on the parties by mail the same day. In the award, the Arbitrator stated that she would retain jurisdiction of the matter "in the event the grievant is found to be qualified, and the parties are unable to agree upon a remedy." By letter of August 7, 1984, the Arbitrator responded to certain communications from the parties advising them that because the Activity had determined that the grievant was not qualified for the particular position involved, she had not retained jurisdiction. The Union then filed exceptions with the Authority on August 31, 1984.

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 2429.27 of the Rules and Regulations, which are also applicable to computation of the time limit here involved, any exceptions to the Arbitrator's award in this case had to be filed with the Authority no later than the close of business on July 30, 1984. However, the Union's exceptions were not filed until August 31, 1984. Therefore, the exceptions were untimely filed.

The Union, however, in effect takes the position that its exceptions are timely because the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction of the matter, the award was not final until August 7, 1984, and the time for filing exceptions did not begin to run until that date. However, as the Arbitrator informed the parties, she did not retain jurisdiction of this matter subsequent to her award of June 26, 1984. Moreover, in arbitration cases that have come before the Authority it is not uncommon for an arbitrator to have retained jurisdiction for a period of time to resolve questions or problems that might arise concerning the award. However, retention for such purpose does not by itself serve to extend the time limits for filing exceptions. E.g., Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1164, AFL-CIO, 14 FLRA 444, n. 1 (1984); Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, 15 FLRA No. 28 (1984). Therefore, in the instant case, the time limit for filing exceptions to the Arbitrator's award began on June 28, 1984 and expired on July 30, 1984.

Accordingly, as the Union's exceptions were untimely filed on August 31, 1984, they are dismissed on that basis. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., March 19, 1985 Harold D. Kessler Managing Director for Case Processing

--------------- 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).