Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2006 (Authority decision, March 26, 1985)

Social Security Administration (FLRA O-AR-928): Removal exceptions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
O-AR-928
Decided
March 26, 1985
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-05

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1985, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1985
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. The Authority dismissed the union's exceptions because the award relates to an employee removal, a matter excluded from its arbitration review jurisdiction. The decision identifies review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703 as the route for such matters.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2006 filed exceptions to an arbitration award concerning removal of a Social Security Administration employee. The Authority held that removal falls within the adverse actions excluded from its jurisdiction over arbitration exceptions. It dismissed the union's exceptions without reaching their merits. The decision says the employee may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Removal review exclusion under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(f), 7122(a), and 7512.
  • Outcome: Union exceptions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Key point: FLRA arbitration exception review does not cover awards involving employee removal.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p323 ]

17:0323(46)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 46

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Activity

and

LOCAL 2006, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. O-AR-928

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Gladys Gershenfeld filed by the Union pursuant to section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 7122(a)). For the reasons that follow, the Authority is without jurisdiction to review the exceptions and the exceptions therefore must be dismissed.

Section 7122(a) of the Statute provides, in pertinent part:

Either party to arbitration under this chapter may file with the Authority an exception to any arbitrator's award pursuant to the arbitration (other than an award relating to a matter described in section 7121(f) of this title).

As relevant to this case, the matters described in section 7121(f) of the Statute include those covered under 5 U.S.C. 7512 which, in turn, applies to specified adverse actions including removals. Review of an arbitration award relating to such matters must be obtained in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 7703, i.e., in the same manner and under the same conditions as if the matter involved had been decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Since the arbitrator's award relates to a matter covered by 5 U.S.C. 7512, i.e., the removal of the grievant, under section 7122(a) of the Statute, exceptions to the award may not be filed with the Authority. Consequently, the Authority is without jurisdiction to review the exceptions. Rather, the grievant may seek judicial review of the arbitrator's award pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7703.

Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the Union's exceptions are hereby dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C. March 26, 1985 Harold D. Kessler Managing Director for Case Processing

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace