American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of EEOC Locals No. 216 (Union) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Agency)
[ v57 p680 ]
57 FLRA No. 136
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
EEOC LOCALS NO. 216
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
January 31, 2002
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Benjamin M. Shieber filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions. [n *]
Under § 7122(a) of the Statute, an award is deficient if it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case, and Authority precedent, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See United States Dep't of Defense, Education Activity, Arlington, Virginia, 56 FLRA 887, 891 (2001) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons not encompassed within the grievance); AFGE, Local 2921, 50 FLRA 184, 185-86 (1995) (arbitrator's determination of the procedural arbitrability of a grievance is subject to challenge only on grounds other than those that directly challenge the procedural arbitrability determination).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Footnote # * for 57 FLRA No. 136
The Agency filed a request for a waiver of the time limit to file its opposition to the Union's exceptions on the basis of delays in the mail service in the Washington, D.C. area. Later, on January, 17, 2002, the Agency filed its opposition, wherein it states that the Authority, "on its own motion, extended the Agency's time to file an opposition to the Union's exceptions until January 18, 2002." Opposition at 1 n.1. The Agency misinterprets the Authority's December 21, 2001 order which mentions the January 18 date. This order only concerned a situation where the Agency had already filed its opposition with the Authority through the U.S. mail. However, notwithstanding the Agency's assertion, we find that extraordinary circumstances are presented and, therefore, we grant the Agency's unopposed request for a waiver of the time limit to file its opposition. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(b).