U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

34:0014(3)AR - FTC HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.and AFGE, LOCAL 2211 -- 1989 FLRAdec AR

[ v34 p14 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 34 FLRA NO. 3

                             WASHINGTON, D.C.


                                LOCAL 2211



     			      September 8, 1989

     The Federal Trade Commission (Agency) has filed exceptions
to the award of Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan in the
above-referenced case. On July 24, 1989, the Authority directed
the Agency to show cause why its exceptions should not be
dismissed as untimely filed. The Agency filed a timely response
to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out below, the
Agency's exceptions are untimely and must be dismissed.

     In its response, the Agency contends that the Authority's
practice of adding 5 days, as authorized under section 2429.22 of
the Authority's Regulations, after the prescribed period for
filing exceptions to the Arbitrator's award effectively extends
the 30-day period and presents a conflict between the Authority's
Regulations and the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations
Statute (the Statute). The Agency argues that the time allowed
for service by mail should be taken into account before the
period prescribed for filing exceptions begins to run. Applying
this interpretation to the subject case, the Agency argues that
its exceptions are timely filed.

     The Agency's argument cannot be sustained. Section 7122(b)
of the Statute refers to the time period for filing exceptions as
"beginning_on the date the award is served on the party,. .
."(emphasis added) Absent evidence to the contrary, the date of
the arbitrator's award is the date the award is served.
See Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees Local
No. 916, 32 FLRA  165, 167 (1988). Adding 5 days' mail time
before calculating the prescribed time for filing exceptions
would disregard the date the arbitrator's award is served and
would, therefore, be contrary to the Authority's Regulations and
the Statute. In addition, the 5-day allowance for service by mail
in section 2429.22 of our Regulations is "added to the prescribed
period(.)" It does not extend the prescribed period for filing
documents but rather is an allowance for mail service.

     Applying the Authority's procedure to the subject case, we
calculate the due date for filing exceptions as follows: The
Arbitrator's award is dated May 30,  1989. The Agency does not
dispute that the award was served by mail on the same date.
Therefore, under section 7122 (b) of the Statute, as amended, and
section 2425.1 of the Authority's Rules, as amended, the 30-day
period for filing exceptions started to run on May 30,  1989, and
expired on Wednesday, June 28, 1989. Since the award was served
by mail, 5 additional days must be added to the due date as
provided by section 2429.22. Therefore, by operation of section
2429.22, the due date for filing exceptions was Monday, July 3,
1989. The Agency's exceptions were filed (postmarked) on July 5,

     The Agency's exceptions were not timely filed. Accordingly,
the Agency's exceptions are dismissed.

     For the Authority.

Clyde B. Blandford, Jr.
Acting Executive Director