AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2986, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued November 18, 1997 Decided November 28, 1997
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2986,
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Anne M. Wagner argued the cause for petitioners, with
whom Mark Roth was on the briefs.
Ann M. Boehm, Attorney, Federal Labor Relations Au-
thority, argued the cause for respondent, with whom David
M. Smith, Solicitor, and William R. Tobey, Deputy Solicitor,
were on the brief.
Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD and RANDOLPH,
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM: We dismiss the petitions for review of the
decisions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority ("Authori-
ty") in American Federation of Government Employees, Lo-
cal 2986, 51 F.L.R.A. No. 126 (July 19, 1996), and American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 3006, 51
F.L.R.A. No. 142 (July 31, 1996), for want of jurisdiction.
In these cases, Locals 2986 and 3006 of the American
Federation of Government Employees ("Unions") sought sev-
erance pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5595 (1994 & Supp. 1996),
on behalf of former civilian technicians of the National Guard
who were terminated from their positions because of their
failure to maintain membership in the National Guard. In
both cases, arbitrators awarded severance pay to the former
technicians, and the National Guard Bureau filed exceptions
to the arbitration awards with the Authority. The Authority
purported to review the arbitrators' decisions under 5 U.S.C.
§ 7122(a) (1994); in each case, the Authority overturned the
awards granting severance pay. The Unions seek review of
the Authority's decisions, claiming that the Authority did not
have jurisdiction under § 7122(a) to consider the National
Guard Bureau's exceptions to the arbitration awards.
This court lacks jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7123 to
review the Authority's decisions in these cases. We do not
discern a violation of a clear statutory mandate by the
Authority which would warrant judicial intervention under
standards of the