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.         


[ v34 p500 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 34 FLRA NO. 82



                     LOCAL UNION NO. 900



		        January 22, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Josef Rohlik. A grievance was filed
concerning the rating that the grievant received when she applied
for a Military Personnel Staffing Technician position. The
Arbitrator denied the grievance because it was not timely filed
in accordance with time frames set forth in the parties'
collective bargaining agreement.

     The American Federation of Government Employees, Local Union
No. 900 (the Union) filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute). The U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (the Activity)
did not file an opposition to the exceptions.

     We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth
in section 7122(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, we deny the
Union's exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant applied for one of several Military Personnel
Staffing Technician positions. On approximately [PAGE] September
9, 1987, the grievant received notification that she was rated
highly qualified but was not included in the best qualified
group. Dissatisfied with her rating, the grievant inquired
informally about the rating in order for the Activity to correct
what she felt was an obvious error.

     From October 19 to November 12, 1987, the grievant had
several informal meetings with her supervisors regarding the
rating. The Activity informed the grievant that the rating was

     The grievant filed a grievance on December 1, 1987,
protesting the rating she received. The grievance was not
resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

     The Activity claimed the matter was not arbitrable because
the grievance was filed untimely. The parties stipulated that the
Arbitrator should decide the arbitrability question before
proceeding with the hearing on the merits. Based on the testimony
given at the hearing, the Arbitrator found that the grievance was
untimely. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

     III. Exceptions

     The Union contends that the award is deficient because the
Activity violated five Articles of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement and failed to bargain in good faith.

     IV. Discussion

     The Statute sets forth the grounds on which an arbitration
award will be found deficient. Under section 7122(a), an award
will be found deficient: (1) because it is contrary to any law,
rule, or regulation; or (2) on other grounds similar to those
applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations

     The Union's exceptions that the Activity violated five
Articles of the collective bargaining agreement and failed to
bargain in good faith do not provide a basis for finding the
Arbitrator's award deficient under the Statute. Rather, the
exceptions constitute disagreement with the Arbitrator's ruling
that the grievance was not timely filed and, therefore, was not
procedurally arbitrable. Disagreement with an arbitrator's
determination on the procedural arbitrability of a grievance
provides no basis for finding an award deficient. See, for
example, Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Force
Base and American Federation [PAGE 2] of Government Employees,
Local 987, 32 FLRA  1081, 1082-83 (1988). Consequently, the
Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award

     V. Decision

     The Union's exceptions are denied.