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.         


[ v40 p1254 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

  40 FLRA NO. 111






                         May 31, 1991

     The grievant, Harry McKendry, filed exceptions to the award
of Arbitrator Jerome G. Greene in the above-captioned case.  */ 
On May 2, 1991, the Authority directed Mr. McKendry to show cause
why his exceptions should not be dismissed because he was not
properly authorized to file exceptions. Mr. McKendry filed a
timely response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out
below, Mr. McKendry's exceptions must be dismissed.

     The Authority's Regulations provide that "(e)ither party" to
an arbitration proceeding "may file an exception to an
arbitrator's award rendered pursuant to the arbitration." 5
C.F.R. 2425.1(a). A "party" in the context of an arbitration
proceeding is defined as "any person ... who participated as a
party ... in a matter where the award of an arbitrator was
issued...." 5 C.F.R. 2421.11(a)(4)(ii). 

     The Arbitrator's award indicates that the parties to the
arbitration proceeding were the Agency, represented by Catherine
Iaconic, and the Union, represented by Steven P. Flig.

     On April 15, 1991, the Union's National Counsel informed the
Authority in writing that, "NTEU did not file exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Greene. Although Mr. McKendry was authorized
to file an appeal by Chapter 137, there is nothing in the record
to show that Chapter 137 was a "party" in the context of the
arbitration proceeding.

     The Authority's May 2, 1991 Order to Show Cause directed the
grievant to provide evidence that: (1) Chapter 137 participated
as a "party" in the arbitration proceeding; or (2) Chapter 137
was granted the authority by the Union to authorize the grievant
to file the subject exceptions; or (3) the Union directly
authorized the grievant to file the exceptions presently before
the Authority.

     In his response to the Authority's Order, Mr. McKendry
enclosed: (1) a bill from the Arbitrator dated March 7, 1991,
addressed to Catherine Iaconic for the Agency, and Steven P. Flig
for the Union with a joint total of $1,500.00; and (2) a bill
from the Union dated March 14, 1991, for Chapter 137 to pay
$375.00 (one half of the Union's share of the joint total owed to
the Arbitrator). The grievant asserts that, "The sharing of the
financial costs equally by Chapter 137 and the 'National' clearly
indicate a shared 'common-bond' interest strong enough to qualify
the Chapter as a 'party' to the proceedings." The grievant argues
further that, "Chapter 137 participated as a 'party' in the
arbitration proceeding in that the initial response to the
Agency's suspension proposal originated with Chapter 137, and
laid the groundwork for the 'expedited arbitration.'"

     The grievant's arguments are insufficient and must be
rejected. Chapter 137's financial contribution to the costs of
the arbitration proceeding and its participation in laying the
groundwork in preparation for an arbitration proceeding does not
establish its participation as a "party" within the context of an
arbitration proceeding. The right under the Authority's
Regulations to file exceptions to an arbitrator's award is
limited to "(e)ither party." 5 C.F.R. 2425.1(a). The Union's
participation as a party is evidenced by its representative,
Steven P. Flig, appearing at the hearing before the Arbitrator as
the Union's representative of record. Additionally, the Union's
statement to the Authority that it "did not file exceptions to
the award of Arbitrator Greene" is not disputed by either  the 
grievant or Chapter 137. In fact, the grievant
acknowledges in his response the '"National's" decision to not
further involve its attorney's in the appeal".

     Accordingly, as Mr. McKendry has failed to show that he was
properly authorized to file exceptions in the above-captioned
case, Mr. McKendry's exceptions are dismissed for lack of
standing as a party to file exceptions in the above-captioned

     For the Authority.

                              Alicia N. Columna
                              Director, Case Control Office


     Footnote */ Mr. McKendry's exceptions included a March 21,
1991,   authorization from Chapter 137 permitting Mr. McKendry to
"represent an   appeal" in the above-captioned case.