At this time FLRA remains fully operational. Effective Friday July 31, 2020, the agency now extends the prohibition on in-person filings indefinitely.  

See details: here.

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

33:0040(4)AR - - AFGE Local 2612 and Griffiss AFB - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v33 p40

[ v33 p40 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

33 FLRA No. 4








October 12, 1988

Before Chairman Calhoun and Member McKee.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Robert A. Browning filed by AFGE, Local 2612 (the Union) under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Griffiss Air Force Base (the Activity) did not file an opposition.

A grievance was filed contesting the Activity's revocation of an employee's on-base driving privileges. The Arbitrator denied the grievance because it: (1) was not timely filed in accordance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement; and (2) concerned a matter which was not covered by the parties' agreement. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exceptions are denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

Following an incident involving the grievant, the Activity revoked his on-base driving privileges. Subsequently, a grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration over the Activity's revocation of the grievant's driving privileges.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance because of procedural and substantive nonarbitrability. The Arbitrator found that the grievance was procedurally nonarbitrable because it was filed 6 days later than permitted under a provision of the parties' collective bargaining agreement establishing time limits for the filing of grievances.

The Arbitrator also determined that the grievance was not substantively arbitrable. After noting the Activity's argument that the incident resulting in the revocation of the grievant's driving privileges occurred during off-duty hours and was not related to his work, the Arbitrator found that he had no authority over the grievance "since an arbitrator's authority stems solely from the Agreement and its related on-the-job incidents." Award at 4.

III. Position of the Union

The Union contends that the grievance was timely filed in accordance with the parties' agreement and was, therefore, arbitrable. The Union also contends that the subject matter of the grievance was arbitrable because there was a nexus between the off-duty incident and on-the-job performance.

IV. Discussion

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to law, rule, or regulation or that it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations.

The Union's contention that the grievance was timely filed provides no basis for finding the award deficient. An exception disagreeing with an arbitrator's ruling on the procedural arbitrability of a grievance is not a ground for finding an award deficient. See, for example, Veterans Administration, Buffalo Regional Office and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3314, 29 FLRA 964 (1987) (denying exceptions to an award in which an arbitrator found that a grievance was not filed within the time required by the parties' collective bargaining agreement).

Since no basis has been provided to show that the Arbitrator's ruling on the timeliness of the grievance is deficient, we do not reach the Union's exception to the Arbitrator's determination that the grievance was substantively arbitrable under the parties' agreement.

V. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)