15:0399(83)AR - AFGE Local Union 1547 and Air Force, Luke AFB, AZ -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v15 p399 ]
15:0399(83)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 83
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 1547
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-742
 
                        ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
 
    This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator David Goodman filed on behalf of the Activity by the
 Department of the Air Force (the Agency) 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 September 23, 1983, and appears to
 have been served on the parties by mail on the same day.  A dispute
 subsequently arose between the parties concerning the Activity's
 compliance with the remedy ordered by the Arbitrator and the Union
 requested assistance from the Arbitrator in an attempt to resolve the
 matter.  The Arbitrator responded by letter of March 1, 1984,
 essentially advising the parties that the intent of the remedy set forth
 in his September 23, 1983, award was clear.  The Agency filed exceptions
 with the Authority on March 30, 1984, asserting, among other things,
 that the alleged deficiencies in the award arose with the Arbitrator's
 letter of March 1, 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 of September 23, 1983, had to be filed with the
 Authority no later than the close of business on October 28, 1983.
 Thus, it immediately and clearly appears that the exceptions filed by
 the Agency on March 30, 1984, are untimely.  The Agency, however, takes
 the position that its exceptions are timely, assertedly because the time
 period began with the Arbitrator's response of March 1, 1984.
 
    As the Agency recognizes, the Authority has 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 filing period began with the modification.  /3/
 In this case, however, the Arbitrator did not modify his award.  Rather,
 as indicated above, the Arbitrator essentially advised th