15:0200(36)AR - Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Kelly AFB, TX and AFGE Local 1617 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v15 p200 ]
15:0200(36)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 36
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
 KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1617
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-675
 
                        ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
 
    This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Joe D. Woodward filed by the Department of the Air Force (the
 Agency) on behalf of the Activity pursuant to section 7122(a) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and section 2425.1 of
 the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  For the reasons stated below, it
 has been determined that the Agency's exceptions must be dismissed as
 untimely filed.
 
    The Arbitrator's award in this case is dated June 14, 1983, and
 appears to have been served on the parties by mail on the same day.  A
 dispute subsequently arose concerning the Agency's compliance with a
 portion of the award.  In September 1983, the parties requested
 clarification of that part of the award from the Arbitrator.  The
 Arbitrator responded on October 28, 1983, stating, among other things,
 that it appeared that his June 14 award was clear, concise and not open
 to misinterpretation and rejecting the Agency's interpretation of the
 disputed portion of the award.  However, the Arbitrator also provided
 further explanation of the intent of the remedy he had ordered.  The
 Agency then filed the instant exceptions with the Authority on November
 28, 1983.
 
    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
 2429.22 of the Rules and Regulations, which are also applicable to
 computation of the time limit here involved, any exceptions to the
 Arbitrator's award of June 14, 1983 had to be filed with the Authority
 by the close of business on July 18, 1983.  Thus, it immediately and
 clearly appears that the exceptions filed by the Agency on November 28,
 1983 are untimely.  However, the Agency asserts that since its
 exceptions were filed within 30 days of the date of the Arbitrator's
 clarification they should be considered timely.
 
    As the Agency recognizes, the Authority has held in the particular
 circumstances of a case where the arbitrator, in response to a
 clarification request, modified his award in such a way as to give rise
 to alleged deficiencies, that the time limit for filing exceptions began
 with th