21:0999(119)CA - Treasury, USCS NY Region,New York, N.Y. and NTEU and NTEU, Chapter 161 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v21 p999 ]
21:0999(119)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 21 FLRA No. 119
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE 
 NEW YORK REGION 
 NEW YORK, NEW YORK
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES 
 UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY 
 EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 161
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-50022
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority because of
 exceptions filed by the Respondent to the attached Decision of the
 Administrative Law Judge.  The General Counsel and the Charging Party
 (the Union) filed oppositions to the exceptions.  The issue concerns
 whether the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by
 failing and refusing to comply fully with an arbitration award which
 became final and binding once the Authority denied all of the
 Respondent's timely filed exceptions to such award.
 
                  II.  Background and Judge's Conclusion
 
    As more fully set forth in the Judge's Decision, Arbitrator Monroe
 Berkowitz issued an arbitration award which found that the Respondent
 had improperly transferred employee Robert Alvarado /1/ from Perth Amboy
 to Newark, New Jersey under the terms of the parties' agreement.  As his
 award, the Arbitrator required the Respondent to return Alvarado to his
 former duties at Perth Amboy and to pay him at the usual government
 rates for the extra mileage he had driven during his reassignment to
 Newark.
 
    The Judge found that the arbitration award in question had become
 final and binding when the Authority denied the Respondent's exceptions,
 and that on this date the Respondent was under a legal obligation to
 comply fully with the arbitration award.  He also noted that the
 Respondent's exceptions to the award filed with the Authority did not
 raise the argument that payment of travel expenses would be a direct
 violation of the Back Pay Act.  The Judge concluded that the Respondent
 violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply
 fully with the arbitration award, and ordered the Respondent to
 compensate the grievant for travel expenses as required by the award.
 
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    In its exceptions, the Respondent repeats the argument made before
 the Judge that for the Agency to pay travel expenses is illegal under
 the Back Pay Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act.  It argues that such an
 award would violate the holdings in Morris v. United States, 595 F.2d
 591 (Ct. Cl. 1979) and Hurley v. United States, 624 F.2d 93 (10th Cir.
 1980).  It argues further that the Authority should seek a ruling from
 the Comptroller General before rendering a decision in this matter.  The
 General Counsel and the Union, in their respective oppositions to the
 Respondent's exceptions, note that the Morris and Hurley cases did not
 involve (final and binding) arbitration awards.  They agrue that the
 Respondent's contentions are without merit and that the Judge's
 conclusion is correct and amply supported by Authority precedent.
 
                               IV.  Analysis
 
    The Judge concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(1) and
 (8) of the Statute by failing and refusing to comply fully with an
 arbitration award which became final and binding once the Authority
 denied all of the timely filed exceptions to such award.  The Authority
 notes particularly that the Respondent's allegation that the arbitration
 award is contrary to the Back Pay Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act was
 not raised before the Authority in its exceptions to the arbitration
 award.
 
    In United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 15 FLRA 151 (1984), affirmed sub
 nom. Department of the Air Force, et al. v FLRA, 775 F.2d 727 (6th Cir.
 1985), the Authority stated:
 
          To allow a party which has not filed exceptions to an award to
       defend its failure to implement that award in a subsequent unfair
       labor practice proceeding on grounds that should have been raised
       as exceptions to the award under section 7122 . . . would
       circumvent the procedures provided in section 7122(a) and
       frustrate Congressional intent with respect to the finality of
       arbitration awards.
 
    The Authority in Department of Defense, Department of the Navy,
 United States Marine Corps, United States Marine Corps Air Station,
 Cherry Point, North Carolina, 15 FLRA 686 (1984) further stated:
 
          Given the Congressionally mandated exclusivity of section
       7122(a) as a mechanism for questioning arbitrators' awards, it
       would be inappropriate for the Authority to entertain in
       subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings matters which more
       appropriately should be pursued in accordance with section 7122(a)
       of the Statute.  In the Authority's view, any contention that an
       arbitrator's award is deficient because it is contrary to any law,
       rule, or regulation must be made by invoking the procedures
       established by Congress in section 7122(a) of the Statute.
       (Footnote omitted.)
 
    In this case, the Authority finds that the Respondent was required to
 implement the arbitration award, which became "final and binding" within
 the meaning of section 7122(b) of the Statute, upon the Authority's
 denial of the Respondent's exceptions.  See United States Department of
 Justice and Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (Washington, D.C.)
 and Federal Correctional Institution (Danbury, Connecticut), 20 FLRA No.
 5 (1985), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of Justice
 and Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons et al. v. FLRA, No. 85-4167
 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 1985).  In the Authority's view, failure to comply with
 any part of an arbitrator's award to which no exceptions have been filed
 once that award has become final and binding constitutes a failure to
 comply with the requirements of section 7122 of the Statute in violation
 of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.  Any other conclusion
 would be inconsistent with section 7122(b), as a party could fail to
 file exceptions to portions of an arbitrator's award pursuant to section
 7122(a), take no action to comply with the award, and then belatedly
 present its argument as a defense to a complaint in a subsequent unfair
 labor practice proceeding that the failure and refusal to comply with a
 final and binding arbitration award constituted an unfair labor
 practice.  To permit such a protracted procedure would be inconsistent
 with the policy that the arbitration process provides both an
 expeditious and a final resolution of grievances.
 
    The Respondent, having filed no exceptions pertaining to the Back Pay
 Act or the Anti-Deficiency Act in its exceptions to the Arbitrator's
 award and its other exceptions having been denied by the Authority, was
 required to take the actions required by the arbitrator's award, and its
 failure to do so violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.
 See also United States Marshals Service v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.
 1985), affirming the Authority's decision in U.S. Marshals Service, 13
 FLRA 351 (1983).  That case involved an agency's refusal to comply with
 an unfair labor practice remedial order of the Authority directing
 compliance with an arbitrator's award, even though the Authority in a
 separate proceeding under section 7122 of the Statute previously had
 rejected the Agency's contentions that the arbitrator's award was
 deficient.  In affirming the Authority's remedial order, the court
 specifically declined to review the Authority's original determination
 that the award was not deficient, but examined the award only to
 determine whether an unfair labor practice was committed -- i.e.,
 whether the agency had failed to comply with the arbitrator's award as
 the Authority ordered it to do.  The court held that the agency's
 refusal to abide by the Authority's order requiring compliance with a
 final and binding arbitration award was an unfair labor practice.
 
    Finally, the Respondent's argument that the Authority should seek an
 opinion from the Comptroller General as to whether the Arbitrator's
 award is consistent with the Back Pay Act is rejected.  The Authority
 has pointed out in prior decisions that Congress intended the awards of
 arbitrators, when they become final, not to be subject to further review
 by any other authority or administrative body, including the Comptroller
 General.  For example, see United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics
 Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, cited above, which
 refers to H.R. Rep. No. 95-1717, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 158 (1978),
 reprinted in Legistative History of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 at
 826 to this effect.  (15 FLRA 151 at 154).
 
                              V.  Conclusion
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings
 of the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed, and thus affirms those rulings.  The Authority has considered
 the Judge's Decision, the exceptions to that decision, the positions of
 the parties, and the entire record, and adopts the Judge's findings,
 conclusions, and recommended Order.  We therefore conclude that the
 Respondent's failure to compensate employee Alvarado for travel
 expenses, as required by the Arbitrator's award in this case, violated
 section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, it is hereby ordered that
 the Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service, New York
 Region, New York, New York shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing and refusing to fully implement the March 26, 1984
 arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing and
 refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvarado for travel
 expenses as required by the award.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in FMCS
 Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert Alvarado for
 travel expenses as required by the award.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities at the Department of the Treasury, United
 States Customs Service, New York Region, New York, New York copies of
 the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor
 Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed
 by the Regional Commissioner, United States Customs Service, New York
 Region, New York, New York, or a designee, and shall be posted and
 maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
 including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
 employees are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to
 insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
 other material.
 
    (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region II, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., May 29, 1986.
 
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to fully implement the March 26, 1984
 arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing or
 refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvarado for travel
 expenses as required by the award.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in
 FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert
 Alvarado for travel expenses as required by the award.
                                       (Activity)
 
    Dated:
                                       By:  (Signature) (Title)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
 material.
 
    If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
 with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
 Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II, whose
 address is:  26 Federal Plaza, Room 2237 New York, New York 10278 and
 whose telephone number is:  (212) 264-4934.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No.: 2-CA-50022
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE NEW
 YORK
 REGION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES
 UNION, CHAPTER 161
    Charging Party
 
    Amy L. Schwartz, Esquire
    For the Respondent
 
    Cecile O'Connor
    For the General Counsel
 
    Michael J. Wolt
    For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  LOUIS SCALZO
    Administrative Law Judge
 
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose as an unfair labor practice proceeding under the
 provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 92
 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as
 "the Statute"), and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder.
 
    The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that since on or
 about August 29, 1984, the Respondent has failed and refused to comply
 with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Section 7122 of the Statute by failing
 and refusing to comply with an arbitrator's award;  and further, that by
 reason of the foregoing, the Respondent committed unfair labor practices
 in violation of Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.  /2/
 
    The Respondent contends that compliance with the award would be
 contrary to the provisions of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5596,
 and the Anti-Deficienty Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1341;  that the award is
 unenforceable under these circumstances;  and that the complaint should
 be dismissed.
 
    Based upon the entire record herein, including the stipulation of
 facts, stipulated exhibits, and briefs filed by the parties, I make the
 following findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    The facts in this case are not in dispute.  A stipulation of facts
 filed by the parties disclosed the following:
 
          1.  On or about March 25, 1984, Arbitrator Monroe Berkowitz
       issued an arbitration award in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308, a case
       involving the Respondent and the Charging Party.  /3/
 
          2.  Arbitrator Berkowitz found that the Respondent improperly
       transferred Customs Inspector Robert Alvardo from Perth Amboy, New
       Jersey to Newark, New Jersey in November of 1982.
 
          3.  The award provides that, "(t)he reassignment of Robert
       Alvardo from Perth Amboy to Newark in November, 1982, was improper
       and in violation of the terms of the national agreement between
       the parties.  Mr. Alvardo shall return forthwith to his former
       duties at the Port of Perth Amboy.  He shall be furnished at the
       usual government rates for the extra mileage, 40 miles per day,
       which he has driven since his reassignment to Newark."
 
          4.  Exceptions to the arbitration award were filed with the
       Authority by the Respondent on or about April 24, 1984.
 
          5.  By letter dated April 27, 1984, the Federal Labor Relations
       Authority acknowledged receipt of Respondent's exceptions and
       assigned Case No. 0-AR-758 to the proceedings.
 
          6.  On or about June 12, 1984, an opposition to Respondent's
       exceptions was filed with the Authority by the Charging Party.
 
          7.  By decision dated August 29, 1984, the Authority denied
       Respondent's exceptions in Case No. 0-AR-758 on the ground that
       the United States Customs Service "failed to establish that the
       Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
       Section 7122(a) of the Statute;  that is, that the award is
       contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is
       deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal
       Courts in private sector labor-management relations." The award
       then became final and binding.
 
          8.  In or around September, 1984, the Charging Party requested
       that the Respondent comply with the arbitration award issued in
       FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by transferring Customs Inspector Robert
       Alvardo back to the Perth Amboy Port of Entry and compensating him
       for extra travel costs incurred as a result of the improper
       assignment.
 
          9.  On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent, through Benjamin
       Jefferson, Area Director, Newark, Port of Entry, U.S. Customs
       Service, informed the Charging Party that the Respondent would not
       pay travel expenses as ordered in the arbitration award.
 
          10.  On or about November 6, 1984, Respondent complied with,
       and implemented the arbitration award referred to above only with
       respect to the reassignment of Customs Inspector Alvardo from
       Newark to the Perth Amboy Port of Entry.
 
          11.  Since on or about August 29, 1984, Respondent has refused,
       and at all times thereafter has continued to refuse, to reimburse
       Customs Inspector Alvardo for travel costs as required by the
       arbitrator's award in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308.
 
          12.  The determination not to compensate Customs Inspector
       Alvardo for extra travel costs was made by the Respondent.
 
          13.  The determination not to compensate Customs Inspector
       Alvardo was based on Respondent's opinion that compensation of
       Customs Inspector Alvardo for travel expenses would be in direct
       violation of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5596 (1976), and
       on holdings in Morris v. United States, 595 F.2d 591 (Ct. of Cl.
       1979) and Hurley v. United States, 624 F.2d 93 (10th Cir. 1980).
 
          14.  The Respondent did not raise the argument of illegality of
       the travel expense payment as set forth in Paragraph 13 above as a
       timely exception to the arbitrator's award in FMCS Case No.
       83K/29308.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    In U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, Washington, D.C., 15 FLRA No. 26
 (1984), 15 FLRA 139, /4/ the Authority made it clear that the language
 of Section 7122 of the Statute requires an agency to take actions
 required by an arbitrator's award when the award becomes "final and
 binding." In this case the Authority held that an arbitrator's award
 becomes final and binding when timely exceptions are not filed in
 accordance with the provisions of Section 7122(a), or when timely filed
 exceptions have been denied by the Authority.  The Authority used the
 following language to explain the meaning of Section 7122:
 
          The language of section 7122(b) makes it clear that an agency
       must take the actions required by an arbitrator's award once the
       award has become final, and defines a final and binding
       arbitrator's award as one to which no exceptions are filed during
       the prescribed time following the service date of such award.
       Accordingly, where no timely exceptions to an arbitrator's award
       have been filed under section 7122(a) of the Statute, an agency's
       subsequent failure or refusal to implement the award has been
       found to constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of
       the Statute.  See U.S. Army Health Clinic, Fort Ritchie, Maryland,
       9 FLRA No. 133 (1982).  Similarly, once an agency's timely filed
       exceptions to an arbitrator's award have been denied by the
       Authority, the agency must implement such award, and therefore a
       subsequent failure or refusal to do so also constitutes a
       violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.  See
       United States Marshals Service, 13 FLRA No. 60 (1983), appeal
       docketed, No. 83-7973 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 1983).  Such conclusion
       is consistent with the intent of Congress with respect to the
       finality of arbitrators' awards, as expressed by the Committee of
       Conference in its Report which accompanied the bill ultimately
       enacted and signed into law:  (footnote omitted)
 
          The House provides that if no exception to an a arbitrator's
       award is filed with the Authority, the award "shall be final and
       binding" (section 7122 (b)).  The Senate contained no comparable
       provision.  The conferees adopted the House provision.  The intent
       of the House in adopting this provision was to make it clear that
       the awards of arbitrators, when they become final, are not subject
       to further review by any other authority or administrative body,
       including the Comptroller General.  (Emphasis added.)
 
    The concept was further elaborated in United States Air Force, Air
 Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 15 FLRA
 No. 27 (1984), 15 FLRA 151, at 153, where the Authority stated:
 
          (W)here a party seeks to challenge the propriety of an
       arbitration award, the appropriate mechanism for doing so, as
       Congress clearly intended, is through the filing of exceptions to
       that award under the provisions of Section 7122(a) of the Statute.
 
    It is clear from the facts in this case that Arbitrator Berkowitz's
 March 26, 1984 arbitration award became final and binding within the
 meaning of Section 7122 of the Statute, when the Authority denied
 Respondent's exceptions.  This occurred on August 29, 1984.  On this
 date the Respondent was under a legal obligation to comply fully with
 the arbitration award.  The fact that the Respondent did not raise
 certain legal defenses during appeal of the arbitration award would not
 operate to subject the Authority's decision to collateral attack in this
 forum.  United States Marshals Service, 13 FLRA No. 60 (1983), 13 FLRA
 351, at 358 footnote 6, appeal docketed, No. 83-7973 (9th Cir., Dec. 30,
 1983).  /5/
 
    In a series of analogous cases involving failure of agencies to
 interpose timely appeals in arbitration cases, the Authority has held
 that any contention that an arbitrator's award is deficient because it
 is contrary to any law, rule or regulation must be made by invoking the
 procedures established by Congress in Section 7122(a) of the Statute.
 Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, United States Marine
 Corps, United States Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North
 Carolina, 15 FLRA No. 137 (1984), 15 FLRA 686;  Veterans Administration
 Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 15 FLRA No. 138 (1984), 15 FLRA 706;
 Department of Health and Human Services, Region II, 15 FLRA No. 139
 (1984), 15 FLRA 710;  Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and
 Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., 16 FLRA No. 118 (1984), 16
 FLRA 840.
 
    In view of the foregoing it must be concluded that the Respondent
 violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply
 fully with the arbitration award under consideration herein.
 
    Having found that the Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8)
 of the Statute, it is recommended that the Authority issue the following
 Order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service, New
 York Region, New York, New York, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Failing and refusing to fully implement the March 26, 1984
       arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing and
       refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvardo for travel
       expenses as required by the award.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining
       or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by
       the Federal Service Labor-Management relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
          (a) Comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in
       FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert
       Alvardo for travel expenses as required by the award.
 
          (b) Post at its New York, New York Regional Office facilities,
       copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the
       Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms,
       they shall be signed by the Regional Commissioner, United States
       Customs Service, New York Region, New York, New York, or his
       designee, and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive
       days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin
       boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily
       posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such
       notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (c) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
       Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region II, Federal
       Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the
       date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply
       herewith.
 
                                       /s/ LOUIS SCALZO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  June 18, 1985
    Washington, DC
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) The Judge's inadvertent misspelling of employee Robert Alvarado's
 name has been corrected within this decision.
 
    (2) Section 7122 of the Statute, as amended by the Civil Service
 Miscellaneous Amendments Act of 1983 (Pub. L. No. 98-224, 4, 98 Stat.
 47, 48 (1984), provides:
 
               Section 7122.  Exceptions to arbitral awards
 
          (a) 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).  If upon review the
       Authority finds the award is deficient --
 
          (1) because it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation;  or
 
          (2) on other grounds similar to those applied by federal courts
       in private sector labor-management relations;
 
          the Authority may take such action and make such
       recommendations concerning the award as it considers necessary,
       consistent with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
 
          (b) If no exception to an arbitrator's award is filed under
       subsection (a) of this section during the 30 day period beginning
       on the date the award is served on the party, the award shall be
       final and binding.  An agency shall take the actions required by
       an arbitrator's final award.  The award may include the payment of
       back pay (as provided in section 5596 of this title).
 
          Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) provide:
 
                   Section 7116.  Unfair labor practices
 
          (a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
       labor practice for an agency --
 
          (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
       exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;
 
                       . . . . . . . .
 
 
          (8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of
       this chapter.
 
    (3) The record reflects that the award was signed by Arbitrator
 Berkowitz on March 26, 1984 (Exhibit 6).
 
    (4) Appeal docketed, No. 84-1439 (D.C. Cir. August 24, 1984,
 reconsideration denied by the Authority on September 20, 1984, Report of
 Case Decisions, Number 264, October 4, 1984.
 
    (5) However, it should be noted that administrative law judge
 decisions are subject to review by the Authority, and that Authority
 decisions relating to unfair labor practices are subject to review by an
 appropriate United States court of appeals.
 
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES O