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.         

45:0976(97)AR - - DOD, Military Entrance Processing Station, Pittsburgh, PA and AFGE Local 1627 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v45 p976



[ v45 p976 ]
45:0976(97)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


45 FLRA No. 97

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATION

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1627

(Union)

0-AR-2327

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

August 24, 1992

The grievant, Theresa A. Gasior, filed exceptions to the award of Arbitrator James W. McMullen in the above-captioned case. For the reasons set out below, Ms. Gasior'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)(emphasis added). 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 Ray L. Cornell, and the Union, represented by James F. Shuey.

Ms. Gasior enclosed with her exceptions a letter to her from the Union President dated August 5, 1992. The letter states that, "After a careful review of the Arbitrator's Decision, the Union . . . believes that no further action will be taken. However, since you insist in filing an Exception with the . . . Authority, you may always do so on your own behalf." There is nothing in the letter that clearly shows that Ms. Gasior either participated as a "party" in the proceeding before the Arbitrator, or was authorized by the Union to file the exceptions presently before the Authority. See U.S. Department of the Army, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Tooele Federal Lodge 2261, 38 FLRA 454 (1990).

Accordingly, Ms. Gasior's exceptions are dismissed for her lack of standing as a party to file exceptions in the above-captioned case.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna

Director, Case Control Office




FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)