U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

21:0022(3)AR - SSA and Local 3239, AFGE -- 1986 FLRAdec AR

[ v21 p22 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 21 FLRA No. 3
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1061
                        ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
    This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Erwin B. Ellmann filed by the Agency pursuant to section
 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and
 section 2425.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  The Agency has
 also filed a request for a stay of the award under part 2429 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations.  For the reasons stated below, it has
 been determined that the exceptions and the request for a stay must be
 dismissed as interlocutory.
    According to the Arbitrator, the parties agreed that the issue to be
 resolved by him was whether the Detroit Teleservice Center (the
 Activity) violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by
 eliminating free-of-charge parking for some employees when the Activity
 moved to a new location;  and, if so, what should the appropriate remedy
 be?  In the instant award the Arbitrator essentially found that the
 Activity had violated the parties' agreement.  However, the Arbitrator
 expressly deferred any award as to an appropriate remedy until the
 parties had an opportunity to explore various possibilities.  In that
 latter regard, the Arbitrator only directed the parties to consider
 those possibilities and to notify him of the results within a set period
 of time.  The Arbitrator further advised the parties that if they
 reached agreement lie would, if the parties so desired, review their
 agreement with the object of confirming it in his award;  and if they
 did not reach an agreement, they should be prepared to submit additional
 evidence and argument at a further hearing on this matter.
    Section 2429.11 of the Authority' s Rules and Regulations provides:
 "The Authority and the General Counsel 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, it is clear that the Arbitrator has not rendered a
 final award on the entire dispute before him.  Rather, as indicated
 above, the Arbitrator issued an interim award deciding the first part of
 the issue presented, i.e., whether the Activity violated the parties'
 collective bargaining agreement, and expressly deferred final
 disposition as to the remedy in the dispute.  Thus, the Agency's
 exceptions are considered interlocutory and the facts and circumstances
 are not such as to warrant review of the exceptions at this time.
    Accordingly, since the Agency' s exceptions are interlocutory and
 Authority review is not warranted under the circumstances, the
 exceptions and the request for a stay are hereby dismissed.  However,
 the dismissal is without prejudice to the renewal of any of the Agency'
 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. February 5, 1986
                                       Harold D. Kessler
                                       Director of Case Management