Click here to view the decision.
56 FLRA No. 12
U.S. Department of Defense, Education Activity Arlington, Virginia and Federal Education Association (Reel, Arbitrator), 0-AR-3095 (Decided February 29, 2000)
The Arbitrator sustained a grievance regarding the Agency's denial of travel reimbursement for employees not entitled to renewal agreement travel (RAT). The Authority set aside the award as contrary to law.
Preliminarily, the Authority addressed the issue of whether the Agency had standing to challenge a Panel Order in an arbitration proceeding. In this regard, the Authority concluded that the Agency had standing. The Authority noted that under the provisions of the Statute an agency head is authorized to review and approve or disapprove all provisions of collective bargaining agreements, even those provisions imposed upon the parties by the Panel in resolution of an impasse. The Authority further noted that section 7114(c)(3) of the Statute provides that an agreement which has not been approved or disapproved by the agency involved within 30 days after the date of its execution becomes effective and binding on the parties on the 31st day, without the approval of the agency, subject only to the requirements of the Statute and any other applicable law, rule or regulation. Consequently, because the Agency's disapproval of the Panel's Order was untimely served on the Union, the Order became binding on the parties unless it is contrary to the Statute or any other applicable law, rule or regulation. A question as to the validity of such a provision may be raised in other appropriate proceedings, such as grievance arbitration and unfair labor practice proceedings and, if the agreement provision is found to be in violation of the Statute or any other applicable law, rule or regulation, it would not be enforceable but would be void and unenforceable. An agency does not violate the Statute when it fails to implement a Panel Order subsequently found to be contrary to law.
In this case, the Authority concluded that the Agency's exception demonstrated that the award was contrary to law, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 5722. In particular, the Authority found that the award, implementing the Panel's Order, required an expenditure of Federal money that was not authorized by law.