[ v44 p1602 ]
24:1602(123)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:

44 FLRA NO. 123

     The Union has filed exceptions to the award of Arbitrator
Samuel J. Nicholas in the above-captioned case. On May 6, 1992,
the Authority directed the Union to show cause why its exceptions
should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The Union filed a
timely response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out
below, the Union's exceptions must be dismissed.

     The time limit for filing exceptions to an arbitration award
is 30  days beginning on the date the award is served on the
filing party. 5 C.F.R. 2425.1(b). The date of service is the date
the arbitration award is deposited in the U.S. mail or is
delivered in person. 5 C.F.R. 2429.27(d). Absent evidence to the
contrary, the date of the arbitration award is presumed to be the
date of service of the award. 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).
If the award is served by mail, 5 days are added to the period
for filing exceptions to the award. 5 C.F.R. 2429.22. The time
limit may not be extended or waived by the Authority. 5 C.F.R.
2429.23(d).

     The Arbitrator's award is dated March 19, 1992. Presuming
that the award was deposited in the U.S. mail on that date, an
exception to the award had to be either postmarked by the U.S.
Postal Service or received in person at the Authority no later
than April 22, 1992, in order to be considered timely. 5 C.F.R.
2425.1(b), 2429.21(b) and 2429.22. The Union's exceptions were
filed (postmarked) on April 29, 1992.

     The Union asserts that based on its understanding of advice
received in a telephone conversation with an employee of the
Authority, it calculated the due date for exceptions to the award
of the Arbitrator in the above-captioned case as April 30,  1992.
There is no evidence in the record that an Authority employee is
responsible for the Union's incorrect calculation of its due date
for the exceptions. However, even if an Authority's agent
furnished incorrect information, parties dealing with the Federal
Government are still charged with knowledge of, and are bound by,
statutes and lawfully promulgated regulations. See U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476, 34 FLRA 
307, 309 (1990); and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Billings Area Office, Billings, Montana and
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 478, 39 FLRA 
238, 240 (1991).

     The Union's exceptions were not filed within the prescribed
time limit. As the time limit for filing exceptions may not be
extended or waived by the Authority, the Union's exceptions are
dismissed.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office