[ v07 p424 ]
07:0424(63)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
7 FLRA No. 63 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1501 Union and MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON Activity Case No. 0-AR-131 DECISION THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR ROBERT A. O'NEILL FILED BY THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) /1/ AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425). THE UNION FILED AN OPPOSITION. ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S "INTERIM OPINION," THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN THE GRIEVANT, A GS-4 REPROMOTION ELIGIBLE, WAS NOT SELECTED TO FILL A GS-5 VACANCY. THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE GRIEVANCE AND IT WAS SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION. AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING THE ACTIVITY RAISED A QUESTION AS TO THE ARBITRABILITY OF THE GRIEVANCE. THE ARBITRATOR HEARD TESTIMONY ON THE ARBITRABILITY ISSUE AND INDICATED THAT HE HAD SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO WHETHER HE HAD JURISDICTION TO ARBITRATE THE MATTER AND WISHED TO STUDY THE ISSUE FURTHER(.) THEREAFTER THE ARBITRATOR ISSUED AN "INTERIM OPINION AS TO ARBITRABILITY" IN WHICH HE HELD THE GRIEVANCE TO BE ARBITRABLE. IN ITS EXCEPTION THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXCEPTION THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARBITRATION HEARING THE ARBITRATOR RENDERED A BENCH DECISION IN WHICH HE HELD THE GRIEVANCE TO BE NONARBITRABLE. ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY, AFTER ISSUING THE BENCH DECISION THE ARBITRATOR BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND THEREFORE HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE "INTERIM OPINION" REVERSING THE BENCH DECISION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ARBITRATOR, IN FINDING THE GRIEVANCE ARBITRABLE, EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY. THE AGENCY NOTES THAT NO OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING WAS MADE IN THIS CASE AND SUPPORTS ITS CONTENTION, THAT THE ARBITRATOR MADE A "FINAL" BENCH RULING ON ARBITRABILITY AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, BY MEANS OF AN AFFIDAVIT. HOWEVER, THE UNION SPECIFICALLY REFUTES THIS CONTENTION IN ITS OPPOSITION AND IT IS FURTHER REFUTED BY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, WHICH HE ENTITLES AN "INTERIM OPINION" AND IN WHICH HE REFERS TO THE "INITIAL HEARING" AND STATES THAT HE HAD "WISHED TO STUDY THE ISSUE (OF ARBITRABILITY) FURTHER." IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ARBITRATOR BECAME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUE HIS INTERIM OPINION. THEREFORE, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) AND SECTION 2425.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION IS DENIED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 24, 1981 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES: --------------- /1/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES: (A) 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). IF UPON REVIEW THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT-- (1) BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION; OR (2) ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS; THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, OR REGULATIONS.