35:0970(102)AR - - Army, Army Air Defense Center, Fort Bliss, TX and NAGE Local R14-89 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p970
[ v35 p970 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
35 FLRA No. 102
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY AIR DEFENSE CENTER
FORT BLISS, TEXAS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTION
April 30, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the "supplemental award" of Arbitrator Bennett S. Aisenberg.(*) In the supplemental award, the Arbitrator denied the Union's application for attorney fees.
The Union filed an exception 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 Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exception.
For the following reasons, we are without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's exception. Accordingly, we will dismiss the exception.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
In his original award, the Arbitrator concluded that the Agency's removal of the grievant for deliberate and willful falsification of Government documents for the purposes of the defrauding the Government was unreasonable. The Arbitrator (1) reduced the removal to a 30-day suspension, and (2) directed the Agency to reinstate the grievant and provide her with appropriate backpay and other benefits. The Arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the dispute in the event the parties were unable to agree over the position to which the grievant was to be reinstated or appropriate backpay.
Subsequently, the grievant, through the Union's attorney, requested attorney fees. In the supplemental award, the Arbitrator denied the request. The Arbitrator stated that he "did not intend to rule" on the request and that he intended to "let [his] jurisdiction on this matter expire, and let [the Union's attorney] pursue whatever means were available to him in the appeal process, if appropriate[.]" Supplemental Award at 1.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Union contends that because the request for attorney fees was submitted timely and in accordance with the requirements of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, the supplemental award is contrary to law. The Agency contends that the Arbitrator properly denied the request for attorney fees beca