27:0407(57)AR - Navy Public Works Center, San Diego, CA and NAGE Local R12-35 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v27 p407 ]
27:0407(57)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
27 FLRA No. 57
NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER,
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Activity
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R12-35
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1330
ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator William S. Rule filed on behalf of the Activity pursuant to
section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute and section 2425.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
For the reason stated below, it has been determined that the exceptions
must be dismissed as interlocutory.
The record indicates that the Arbitrator determined that the issues
to be resolved were (1) whether the grievance was arbitrable; (2) If
so, whether the Activity violated the parties' collective bargaining
agreement by failing to properly maintain overtime charts and post them
in all work centers during a specified period of time and (3) If so,
what is the appropriate remedy? The Arbitrator found that the grievance
was arbitrable and that the Activity's conduct violated the parties'
agreement. However, the Arbitrator expressly declined to make a
complete and definitive award as to the appropriate remedy because the
record was apparently incomplete. In this respect, the Arbitrator
provided instructions to the parties and ordered them to enter into a
series of meetings to settle the disputed overtime claims. If the
parties could not reach agreement, they were directed to resubmit the
dispute to the Arbitrator by written brief unless the parties or the
Arbitrator decided a hearing or hearings would be more appropriate.
Further, the Arbitrator directed the parties, upon narrowing the number
of overtime claimants, to attempt to agree on a monetary settlement
because he considered a monetary award the only appropriate remedy.
Finally, the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction for ninety (90) days and
such additional periods of time as may be necessary to see that all
claims pending are finally resolved.
Section 2429.11 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, it is clear that the Arbitrator has not yet rendered a
final award on the entire dispute in this case. Rather, the record
shows that the Arbitrator issued an interim award regarding two of the
issues before him, i.e., whether the matter was arbitrable and whether
the Activity violated the parties' agreement and he expressly declined
to make a final disposition as to the remedy in the dispute. 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 time. See Social Security Administration and Local 3239, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 21 FLRA No. 3 (1986), slip
op. at 22.
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., June 12, 1987.
/s/ Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management