Department of the Army, U.S. Army Training Center Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood (Activity) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-32 (Union)



[ v06 p7 ]
06:0007(4)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 
 6 FLRA No. 4
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 U.S. ARMY TRAINING CENTER
 ENGINEERING AND FORT
 LEONARD WOOD
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL R14-32
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-155
 
                        ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR WILLIAM STIX FILED BY THE UNION UNDER 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 UNION'S EXCEPTIONS AND THEY ACCORDINGLY 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,
 SETS FORTH SPECIFIED ADVERSE ACTIONS INCLUDING REMOVALS.  PURSUANT TO
 SECTION7131(F), REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD RELATING TO SUCH MATTERS
 MAY BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5 U.S.C. 7703 WHICH PROVIDES FOR
 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
 AND UNDER SECTION 7121(F) APPLIES TO THE AWARD OF AN ARBITRATOR AS IF
 THE MATTER HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THAT BOARD.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD IN THIS CASE, THE UNION CONCEDES THAT
 THE "AWARD INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF AN EMPLOYEE," A MATTER SET FORTH IN 5
 U.S.C. 7512.  NEVERTHELESS, THE UNION MAINTAINS THAT THE AUTHORITY IS
 NOT PRECLUDED FROM PROCESSING ITS EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR'S
 AWARD DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL BUT INSTEAD
 ONLY ADDRESSES PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.  IN THIS RESPECT, THE
 ARBITRATOR DETERMINED THAT THE ACTIVITY'S REMOVAL ACTION WOULD NOT BE
 CONSIDERED PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT AS UNTIMELY.  THE ARBITRATOR ALSO
 ORDERED THE GRIEVANCE REMANDED TO STEP 3 OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
 BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THE UNION HAD ONLY ARGUED PROCEDURAL MATTERS AT THAT
 STEP, AND HE RETAINED JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANCE
 IF NECESSARY.  THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD PERTAIN TO THE
 ARBITRATOR'S REFUSAL TO OVERTURN THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL AS PROCEDURALLY
 DEFICIENT, AND THE RELIEF REQUESTED IS THAT THE AUTHORITY REVERSE THE
 GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL.
 
    THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THIS AWARD, BY RESOLVING THE MATTER OF THE
 PROCEDURAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL AND AS TO WHICH THE
 UNION SEEKS TO HAVE