[ v34 p548 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
34 FLRA No. 92
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
January 24, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator James R. McDonnell. The Arbitrator ruled that the grievance was not grievable because it was not timely filed.
The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2930 filed an exception under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Buffalo District Corps of Engineers (the Activity) filed an opposition to the Union's exception.
For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the Union's exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.
II. Background and the Arbitrator's Award
The Arbitrator ruled that the grievance was not grievable because it was not timely filed. The Arbitrator determined that the grievance had not been filed within 30 days of the date the grievant knew or should have known of the alleged violation, as required by the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
III. Positions of the Parties
A. The Union
The Union contends that the award violates and modifies the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement because the Arbitrator permitted the Activity to raise the issue of the untimeliness of the grievance outside the time frame specified in the agreement.
B. The Activity
The Activity first contends that the Union's exception should be rejected because the exception does not contain a statement of the grounds on which review is requested and does not provide rulings bearing on the issues before the Authority or specific references to pertinent documents and citations of authority. The Activity also contends that the exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient because the exception constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement on a procedural arbitrability question of timeliness.
A. The Union's Exception Is Not Procedurally Deficient
The Union's exception is not procedurally deficient. The Union's exception that the award violates and modifies the collective bargaining agreement adequately sets forth: (1) a statement of the ground on which review is requested; (2) arguments in support of this ground; and (3) specific reference to pertinent documents and citations of authority. Therefore, the Union's exception complies with section 2425.2 of our Rules and Regulations.
B. The Union's Exception Provides No Basis For Finding the Award Deficient
We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. The Union has failed to establish that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation or that it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases.
The Union's contention that the award violates and modifies the collective bargaining agreement provides no basis for finding the award deficient under section 7122(a) of the Statute. This contention constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's ruling on the procedural arbitrability issue of whether the grievance had been timely filed under the collective bargaining agreement. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1915 and Wm. Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Hospital, Columbia, S.C., 32 FLRA 1223 (1988) (denial of exceptions which merely disagree with an arbitrator's determination on a procedural arbitrability question is consistent with the decisions of Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases).
As the Union's exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient, we will deny the exception.
The Union's exception is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)