69 FLRA No. 23                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 12

(Union)

 

and

 

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

(Agency)

 

0‑AR‑5138

 

_____

 

DECISION

 

January 8, 2016

 

_____

 

Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Ernest DuBester and Patrick Pizzella, Members

 

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Jonathan E. Kaufmann filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute[1] and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.[2]  The Agency filed an opposition to the Union’s exceptions.

 

We have determined that this case is appropriate for issuance as an expedited, abbreviated decision under § 2425.7 of the Authority’s Regulations.[3]

 

As a preliminary matter, the Agency filed what appeared to be an untimely opposition to the Union’s exceptions.  In response, the Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication issued an order (the order) directing the Agency to show cause why the Authority should consider its opposition.[4]  Although the Agency filed a motion requesting an extension of time to respond to the order (extension request), it did not do so before the regulatory deadline.[5]  Accordingly, we deny as untimely the Agency’s extension request.  In addition, we decline to consider either the Agency’s response to the order or the Agency’s opposition to the Union’s exceptions because neither was timely filed.[6]  Further, although the Union filed an opposition to the Agency’s extension request (extension opposition), our finding that the extension request is untimely renders the extension opposition moot.  Therefore, we decline to consider the extension opposition.[7] 

 

As an additional preliminary matter, §§ 2425.4(c) and 2429.5 of the Authority’s Regulations bar consideration of one of the Union’s arguments.  The Union argues that the Arbitrator applied the wrong legal standard and thereby prevented the Union from demonstrating that the Agency failed to follow merit‑staffing principles when it selected an applicant from a certificate of eligibles.[8]  The Union should have known to raise this argument before the Arbitrator, but the record does not reflect that the Union did so.  Therefore, we dismiss this exception.[9]

 

In addition, two of the exceptions – that the Arbitrator “erred” by “disallowing the challenge to the merit[-]staffing process”[10] and by “accepting the Agency’s unsubstantiated statement that the  merit[-]staffing selection was made from the corrected certificate of eligibles”[11] – do not raise a recognized ground for review listed in § 2425.6(a)-(c) of the Authority’s Regulations[12] and do not demonstrate a legally recognized basis for setting aside the award.  Therefore, we dismiss these exceptions under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations.[13]

 

As for the Union’s remaining exception, upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case and Authority precedent, we conclude that the award is not deficient on the ground raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a).[14]

 

Accordingly, we dismiss, in part, and deny, in part, the Union’s exceptions.