34:0096(23)AR - U.S. ARMY, ARMY RESERVE PERSONNEL CENTER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI and AFGE, LOCAL 900 -- 1989 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p96 ]
34:0096(23)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 34 FLRA NO. 23


                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                 ARMY RESERVE PERSONNEL CENTER
                      ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

                              and

          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                           LOCAL 900

                           0-AR-1684

		ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTION

     			December 29,  1989

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator Thomas J. Erbs. The grievant filed a
grievance contesting her removal from the Army Reserve Personnel
Center (the Activity). The Arbitrator determined that discipline
was warranted, but that removal was not appropriate. The
Arbitrator ordered that the grievant be reinstated without
backpay.

     American Federation of Government Employees Local 900 (the
Union) filed an exception to the award under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
The Activity did not file an opposition to the exception.

     For the reasons stated below, we conclude that we are
without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the Statute to
review the Union's exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     On December 23, 1987, the grievant, a nonprobationary
competitive service employee, was removed from her]
employment at the Activity. She filed a grievance contesting the
removal, and the grievance was submitted to arbitration.

     The Arbitrator determined that substantial discipline of the
grievant was warranted. However, he concluded that removal of the
grievant was not appropriate. The Arbitrator ordered that the
grievant be reinstated without backpay, but with full seniority
and rights.

III. Exception

     The Union contends that the award is deficient because the
Arbitrator erred in not awarding the grievant backpay. The Union
claims that the grievant cannot be reinstated with full seniority
and rights without an award of backpay.

IV. Discussion

     We find that we are without jurisdiction under section
7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's exception.

     Section 7122(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

     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).

     The matters described in section 7121(f) include serious
adverse actions covered under 5 U.S.C. 7512, such as removal