15:0397(82)AR - Army Electronics Research and Development Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ and NFFE -- 1984 FLRAdec AR

[ v15 p397 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 15 FLRA No. 82
                                            Case No. O-AR-763
                        ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
    This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Peter Florey filed by the Union 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 exceptions must be dismissed as
 untimely filed.
    The Arbitrator's award is dated February 28, 1984, and appears to
 have been served on the parties by mail on the same day.  Subsequently,
 the Union requested that the Arbitrator reconsider his denial of the
 Union's request for attorney fees and the Agency requested that the
 Arbitrator clarify other aspects of the award.  The Arbitrator responded
 by letter of March 30, 1984, essentially advising the parties that his
 award was final and that he did not deem it necessary to either
 reconsider the denial of attorney fees or to otherwise clarify the
 award.  The Union filed the instant exceptions with the Authority on
 April 30, 1984.
    Under section 7122(b) of the Statute, as amended, /1/ and section
 2425.1 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 in this case had to be filed with the Authority no
 later than the close of business on April 2, 1984.  Thus, it immediately
 and clearly appears that the exceptions filed by the Union on April 30,
 1984, are untimely.  The Union, however, asserts that the award was not
 final until the Arbitrator denied the Union's request for
 reconsideration on March 30, 1984.
    The Authority has held that a post-award request for clarification
 and the mere possibility of modification of the award by the Arbitrator
 does not deprive the award of finality and render the award
 interlocutory.  /3/ Similarly, the post-award requests of the parties in
 this case did not render the Arbitrator's award interlocutory.  The
 Authority has also held in the circumstances of a case in which the
 Arbitrator, in response to a clarification request, modified the award
 in such a way as to give rise to alleged deficiencies, that the fili