Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

13:0695(111)AR - AFGE Local 2219 and VA Medical Center, Lincoln, NE -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v13 p695 ]
13:0695(111)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 13 FLRA No. 111
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2219
 Union
 
 and
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
 CENTER, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-600
 
                        ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator J. C. Fogelberg filed by the Activity under section 7122(a)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425
 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
    The dispute before the Arbitrator concerns the extent to which
 certain bargaining unit employees are entitled to environmental
 differential pay pursuant to a Working Agreement of the parties and the
 Federal Personnel Manual.  The Arbitrator essentially found, as relevant
 here, that the parties had not engaged in sufficient efforts to narrow
 or resolve the dispute.  The Arbitrator therefore remanded the matter to
 the parties for 30 days for further effort and provided them with
 criteria to be utilized as guidelines for that effort and possible
 settlement.  The Arbitrator directed the parties to report back on the
 results of their efforts within 30 days and expressly retained
 jurisdiction of the matter with respect to the question of remedy.
 
    Section 2249.11 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides:
 "The Authority . . . ordinarily will not consider interlocutory
 appeals." That is, the Authority ordinarily will not consider an appeal
 until a final decision has been rendered on the entire proceeding.
 
    In this case, the Arbitrator has not yet rendered a final award in
 the proceeding.  The Arbitrator remanded the case to the parties for the
 purpose and period described before any final ruling would be rendered.
 Thus, the Activity's exceptions are considered interlocutory and the
 facts and circumstances are not such as to warrant review of the
 exceptions at this stage of the proceeding.
 
    Accordingly, since the Activity's exceptions are interlocutory and
 Authority review is not warranted under the circumstances, the
 exceptions are hereby dismissed.  However, the dismissal is without
 prejudice to the renewal of any of the Activity's contentions in
 exceptions duly filed with the Authority after a final award is rendered
 by the Arbitrator.
 
    For the Authority.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., January 31, 1984
                                       James J. Shepard, Executive
                                       Director