Comprehensive Arbitration 

Training

August 3, 2016

1

Federal Labor Relations 

Authority
Segment 1:

2

Introduction to Federal-Sector Arbitration

&

The Negotiated Grievance Procedure
Private-Sector Arbitration

3

Submit unresolved disputes to impartial third party

Agree in advance to accept decision as final and binding

Result of voluntary agreement

Negotiated grievance procedure = normally confined to 

interpretation/application of CBA

Lack of statutory requirements (different from federal 

sector) 

See, generally 68 FLRA 999, 1004-05 (2015).
Federal-Sector Arbitration

4

 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135 The Federal Service LaborManagement Relations Statute (the Statute)

 § 7121(a)-(b): every CBA must include negotiated 

grievance procedure (NGP) and provide for binding 

arbitration
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

NGP Scope and Coverage

5

 “Grievance” = § 7103(a)(9)

 (1) Any complaint by any employee concerning any matter 

relating to the employment of the employee.

 (2) Any complaint by any union concerning any matter related 

to the employment of an employee.

 (3) Any complaint by any employee, union, or agency

concerning—

 (a) The effect or interpretation, or claim of breach of a CBA

 (b) Any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or 

misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation affecting 

conditions of employment.
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

NGP Scope and Coverage

6

 Parties negotiate matters out of coverage; otherwise included 

(with certain exceptions)

 Tip for arbitrators: Can enforce laws and regulations, not just 

CBA, unless CBA or law excludes use of NGP

 Some exclusions are from sources outside the Statute

 OMB Circular A-76, see 52 FLRA 717, 719-21.

 5 C.F.R. § 575.311(g), see 69 FLRA 7, 9.

 Other exclusions are set forth in the Statute.
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

NGP Scope and Coverage

 Statute excludes (5 U.S.C. § 7121(c)):

 (1) Prohibited political activities.

• See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326 (Hatch Act).

 (2) Retirement, life insurance, or health insurance. 

• E.g., 51 FLRA 204, 207-08. But see 57 FLRA 415, 416-17.

 (3) Suspension or removal for national security 

 reasons.

• See 62 FLRA 391, 391 n.2.

 (4) Examination, certification, or appointment. 

• See 57 FLRA 166, 168; 51 FLRA 210, 212-13; 48 FLRA 511, 513-15.

 (5) Classification of any position that does not result in 

 the demotion of the employee.

• See 66 FLRA 34, 38-39.

7
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

NGP Scope and Coverage

8

 Classification Matters, § 7121(c)(5) (most common)

 Analysis and identification of a position and placing it in a 

class under position-classification plan identified by OPM 

under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 51.

 Essential nature of grievance = integrally related to accuracy of 

classification of grievant’s position. (E.g., 64 FLRA 829, 

830-31).

 Not grievances re: temporary promotions (e.g., 68 FLRA 83, 

84-85; 64 FLRA 552, 554), promotion within existing careerladder (e.g., 52 FLRA 217, 220-22), failure to promote under 

competitive procedure (e.g., 49 FLRA 1387, 1389). 
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

Election of Remedies

9

 § 7116(d): grievance or ULP

 See 67 FLRA 442, 444-47; 64 FLRA 1110, 1111.

 § 7121(d): grievance or EEO complaint

 See 65 FLRA 704, 708-09; 61 FLRA 571, 573-74.

 § 7121(e): grievance or MSPB appeal (adverse actions under 

§ 7512, certain performance-based actions under § 4303)

 E.g., 54 FLRA 235, 237-38.

 § 7121(g): prohibited personnel practice (5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b)(2)) – grievance or appeal to MSPB, or through OSC 

 See 61 FLRA 571, 574.
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

Grievance Bar of § 7116(d)

10

 Grievance barred by ULP charge when:

(1) Same issue (same factual predicate and substantially similar 

legal theories)

 Statutory claim doesn’t bar contractual claim. e.g., 68 FLRA 573, 

575; 67 FLRA 442, 445-46; 59 FLRA 112, 114-17.

(2) ULP was filed earlier (note: doesn’t matter if ULP wasn’t 

pursued or fully litigated, e.g., 64 FLRA 1110, 1112); AND

(3) Selection of ULP procedures was at discretion of aggrieved 

party (note: must be same aggrieved party; distinguish 

individual vs. institutional issues, e.g., 63 FLRA 677, 679-80).
Federal-Sector Arbitration:

Grievance Bar of § 7121(d)

11

Grievance barred by EEO complaint when:

(1) Same subject matter; AND

(2) Matter was earlier raised by the employee timely initiating 

an action under the statutory EEO procedure

 E.g., 69 FLRA 292, 294 (2016)(reprimand = personnel 

action); 61 FLRA 571, 573-74; 

 23 FLRA 414, 417-18 (1986)(timely filing of formal written 

complaint under EEOC regs, not pre-complaint process).
Segment 2:

12

Compliance with Arbitration Awards, 

Arbitral Retention of Jurisdiction,

& Interlocutory Appeals
Compliance with Arbitration Awards

(5 U.S.C. § 7122(b))

13

 § 7116(a)(1) and (8) violation for failure to comply 

with final and binding award; can’t challenge validity 

of award in ULP proceeding.

 Types of cases:

 No timely exceptions filed: compliance req’d when filing 

period expires (e.g., 55 FLRA 293, 296). 

 FLRA denies exceptions: compliance req’d upon denial 

 (e.g., id.).

 Compliance not required while exceptions pending 

 (e.g., 56 FLRA 848, 851-52).
Arbitral Retention of Jurisdiction

14

 “Functus Officio”:

 After arbitrator renders award regarding an issue, no authority 

to take further action on that issue unless: (1) retained 

jurisdiction; or (2) parties jointly request.

 E.g., 64 FLRA 823, 825-26.

 Authority recognizes exceptions to doctrine (e.g., 67 FLRA 19, 

22) where Arbitrator: 

 clarifies initial award;

 corrects clerical or arithmetic error in initial award;

 completes an award to resolve a submitted issue that the arbitrator's 

initial award failed to resolve. 

 Including continuing violations occurring after the initial award. 

68 FLRA 537, 541-43 (Member Pizzella, dissenting).
Arbitral Retention of Jurisdiction:

Attorney Fees

15

 Back Pay Act confers jurisdiction on Arbitrator to consider 

attorney fee request at any time during arbitration or within 

a reasonable period of time after award of backpay becomes 

final and binding, unless parties agreed to a different time 

period. E.g., 67 FLRA 721, 721-22 (Member Pizzella 

dissenting); 67 FLRA 352, 352-53. 

 Arb may retain jurisdiction to resolve motion for attorney 

fees. E.g., 64 FLRA 925, 927.
Final Awards & Interlocutory Appeals

16

 The Authority does not favor interlocutory appeals

 5 CFR § 2429.11 - “ordinarily will not consider 

interlocutory appeals.” 

 5 CFR § 2429.11 reflects judicial policy of discouraging 

fragmentary appeals of the same case. 

E.g., 66 FLRA 688, 689-90; 61 FLRA 355, 357.
Final Awards & Interlocutory Appeals

17

 What is an interlocutory appeal?

 An exception filed before final award has been issued. 

E.g., 64 FLRA 486, 489.

 What is a “final award”?

 An award that completely resolves all submitted issues. 

E.g., 64 FLRA 586, 589.

 Note: Distinct from “final and binding” discussed above.
Final Awards & Interlocutory Appeals

18

 Are all issues “completely resolved”?

 If everything is decided, award is final. E.g., 64 FLRA 586, 

589.

 If all decided and jurisdiction retained for implementation, 

award is final. E.g. 66 FLRA 235, 239.

 Award is probably final even if arbitrator directs parties to 

determine:

 Amount of backpay/damages/costs (e.g., 67 FLRA 336, 337; 

66 FLRA 838, 841-42); or

 Identification of affected individuals (e.g., 66 FLRA 531, 534; 

65 FLRA 252, 254).
Final Awards & Interlocutory Appeals

19

 If issues are beyond computation of amount of 

backpay/damages/costs/IDs unresolved, then 

award probably not final. 

 For example, arb retains jurisdiction, directs parties to: 

 attempt to develop an appropriate remedy (e.g., 61 FLRA 173, 

174); 

 determine whether monetary remedy would be appropriate 

(e.g., 58 FLRA 358, 359).
Final Awards & Interlocutory Appeals

20

 Party should not rely on arb’s characterization of award 

(not determinative by itself, e.g., 65 FLRA 672, 674; 

61 FLRA 355, 357).

 Bifurcated hearings: Just because arb resolved all issues re: 

1

st part of bifurcated hearing, doesn’t mean resolved all 

issues submitted (e.g., 61 FLRA at 356-57).

 Attorney fees: Retention of jurisdiction to resolve does 

NOT render exceptions to merits award interlocutory 

(e.g., 66 FLRA 838, 841-42; 64 FLRA 989, 991).
Exception to Authority’s Policy: 

The Plausible Jurisdictional Defect

21

 Extraordinary circumstances warrant interlocutory review 

where plausible jurisdictional defect, the resolution of 

which will advance the ultimate disposition of the case. 

E.g., 66 FLRA 688, 690; 62 FLRA 344, 346-47.

 “Plausible” = claim is credible on its face; mere assertion 

not enough. E.g., 63 FLRA 216, 217; 55 FLRA 1230, 1232.

 Advancing the “ultimate disposition” of the case = even if 

plausible jurisdictional defect, if resolution of the 

jurisdictional issue would not end the dispute, then may 

dismiss interlocutory appeal. E.g., 59 FLRA 686, 687.
Exception to Authority’s Policy: 

The Plausible Jurisdictional Defect (cont.)

22

 Plausible jurisdictional defects are usually 

statutory.

 Exception granted: Claim arbitrator lacked jurisdiction 

to resolve a classification matter under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7121(c)(5). E.g., 63 FLRA 216, 217-18.

 Exception dismissed: 

 Claim arbitrator lacked jurisdiction based only on parties’ 

agreement. E.g., 66 FLRA 848, 851; 58 FLRA 745, 746.

 Claim that arbitrator may not be impartial in determining 

arbitrability because he had “a financial interest in presiding over 

a prolonged merits hearing.” 68 FLRA 640, 641.
Segment 3:

23

Filing Exceptions and 

Oppositions with the 

FLRA
24
25
Filing Exceptions

26

 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a): Either party to arbitration may file an 

exception (other than an award relating to a matter in § 7121(f)). 

 “Party” = any person who participated as a party in a matter 

where an arb award was issued. E.g., 5 C.F.R. § 2421.11. 

 Unless grievant participated as a party or is authorized to file 

exceptions, only union and agency are entitled to file exceptions. 

Compare 60 FLRA 509, 509 n.1 (union authorized grievant), 

with 40 FLRA 1254, 1255 (union did not authorize).
Where to File

27

Chief, Case Intake and Publication (CIP)

 Federal Labor Relations Authority

 Docket Room, Suite 200

 1400 K Street NW.

 Washington, DC 20424-0001

 

Phone = (202) 218-7740

Fax = (202) 482-6657 (only motions)
How to File

28

5 C.F.R. § 2429.24:

 eFiling

 In person

 Commercial delivery

 First-class mail

 Certified mail

 NOT email

 NOT fax (except for motions)
eFiling

29

Exceptions and oppositions may be filed by registered users through 

the Authority’s eFiling system.

Benefits of eFiling:

 Free: No need to pay for postage or copies.

 Saves time and effort: No need to make 5 copies of filings and 

attachments. No more trips to the post office.

 Quick: No mail delay. FLRA receives your filings immediately.

 Convenient: Save your work and come back later. File any time of 

day or night.
30
31
When to File

32

 For eFiled: Any calendar day (including 

Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) or time (by 

midnight Eastern Time)

 For in-person: Monday through Friday (not 

holidays), 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time
Time Limit for Filing Exceptions 

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.2)

33

 Exceptions due 30 calendar days from date of service of 

award (see also 5 U.S.C. § 7122(b)) PLUS 5 days if award 

served by regular mail or commercial delivery.

 To calculate filing period for exceptions, exclude date of 

service of award.

(see also 5 C.F.R. § 2429.21). 
Time Limit for Filing Exceptions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.2; see also §§ 2429.21, 2429.22)

34

 Method of service of arbitration award:

-If not in parties’ agreement, the arbitrator may use any 

commonly used method:

 Regular mail: postmark date (add 5 days).

 Commercial delivery (e.g., Fed Ex, UPS) = date deposited 

(add 5 days).

 E-mail or fax = date of transmission (DON’T add 5 days).

 Personal delivery = date of delivery (DON’T add 5 days).

 Date received is irrelevant.

 If no legible postmark or no date deposited with 

commercial delivery, then date of award controls.
Time Limit for Filing Exceptions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.2; see also § 2429.21)

 More than one method = First controls. 

 Unless the arbitrator indicates that the first method is not the “official 

service.” 68 FLRA 1015, 1017-18 (Member Pizzella dissenting).

 Service by more than 1 method on same day – do you get the 

5 days?

 Could depend on which method of service the Arbitrator identifies as 

the official method. See 68 FLRA at 1017-18.

 Date of Service of Award: _____ PLUS 30 Days = ___

BUT, if weekend or holiday, then next business day= ____ 

PLUS 5 days if service by mail or commercial delivery=___ 

BUT, if weekend or holiday, then next business day=___

35
36

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wed Thursday Friday Saturday

May 23 24 25 26 27

Date of 

service of 

award

28

Start 

counting

29 30 31 June 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

30 days!

27

Due date

(BUT add 5 

days for mail)

28

Start

counting

29 30 July 1 2

Fifth day

3 4

HOLIDAY

5

ACTUAL

DUE DATE

6 7 8 9
Time Limit for Filing Exceptions 

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.2)

37

 Time limit for filing exceptions cannot be extended or 

waived. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(d); 5 U.S.C. § 7122(b).

 However, time limit for filing exceptions can be equitably 

tolled. 68 FLRA 231, 232-34 (Member Pizzella dissenting)

 Two-pronged test requires that: 

• (1) some extraordinary circumstance stood in a party's way to 

prevent timely filing; and 

• A computer error causing a delay of only a few minutes is not an 

“extraordinary circumstance” where the filing party waited until five 

minutes before the filing deadline to file its exceptions. 68 FLRA 443, 443-

45 (Member DuBester dissenting).

• (2) the party was pursuing its rights diligently.

 Unlike exceptions, the Authority may waive an expired time limit in 

extraordinary circumstances for untimely filed oppositions. 68 FLRA 

189, 191; 5 C.F.R. § 2429.23(b).
Exceptions – Other Procedural Requirements 

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.2)

38

 Other procedural requirements:

 5 C.F.R. § 2429.24: where and how to file

 File exceptions with Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication.

 File in person, by commercial delivery, by first-class mail, by certified 

mail, or through the eFiling system at www.flra.gov. 

 Original must be signed.

 5 C.F.R. § 2429.25 : Original + 4 copies of everything must be filed with the 

Authority (except eFiling).

 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27: Statement of Service 

 Serve all parties with anything you file (see also 5 C.F.R. § 2429.12(b)).

 Submit signed, dated statement of service (or eFiling certification) that 

includes names & addresses of party served, date served, and method of 

service.

 5 C.F.R. § 2429.29: Table of contents if more than 10 double-spaced pages 

(except fillable forms in eFiling).
39
Common Procedural Deficiencies

40

 Deficiency Orders

Failure to provide correct number of copies: 

Original + 4 copies (except eFiling). 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2429.25. 

Failure to provide statement of service. Id. § 2429.27.

Failure to provide table of contents (except fillable forms 

in eFiling): Must include if submission more than 10 

double-spaced pages. Id. § 2429.29.
Common Procedural Deficiencies

41

 Common Show-Cause Orders:

Failure to Cure Procedural Deficiencies

Timeliness

Interlocutory (discussed previously)

Moot/Advisory Opinion. 5 C.F.R. § 2429.10. 

E.g., 64 FLRA 466, 467; 58 FLRA 327, 330. 

Lack of Jurisdiction – § 7121(f) Matters (discussed 

below)

Lack of Standing – not a party under § 2421.11 

(discussed previously) 
Common Procedural Deficiencies

42

 Failure to Comply with/Respond to Show Cause Order (SCO) Will 

Result in Dismissal of Exceptions Without Regard to Nature of 

Procedural Deficiency

 E.g., 63 FLRA 349, 350: Deficiency order for lack of copies and 

statement of service. As U did not cure, Authority issued SCO. In 

response, U said (w/o support) deficiency had been cured. U 

exceptions dismissed; see also 67 FLRA 442 (incorrect number of 

copies).

 E.g., 67 FLRA 442, 444: Dismissing U’s opp’n as untimely and 

declining to waive the expired deadline. See also 68 FLRA 777, 

777-78: Though Ag did respond to SCO, Ag’s opp’n not considered 

because date of service, not date of receipt, controls filing due 

date. 

 E.g., 56 FLRA 829, 830 n.1: Ag failed to respond to SCO re: why 

exceptions shouldn’t be dismissed as interlocutory. Exceptions 

dismissed.
Exceptions - Content

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.4)

 Required content (cont’d):

Support for any request for expedited, abbreviated 

decision. 

Legible copy of arbitrator’s award.

Arbitrator’s name, mailing address, and (if available 

and authorized for use by arbitrator) arbitrator’s e-mail 

address or facsimile number.

43
Expedited, Abbreviated Decisions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.7)

44

 Excepting party may request

 E.g., 67 FLRA 257, 257.

 But Authority has discretion over whether to grant request

 E.g., 68 FLRA 718, 719.

 Opposing party may respond to request in opposition

 Authority considers all circumstances, including:

 Complexity

 Potential for precedential value

 Similarity to other, fully detailed decisions involving same/similar 

issues

 Authority may issue even absent request

 But not in arbitration cases involving a ULP

 
Exceptions - Content

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.4)

45

 Required content: 

 Dated, self-contained.

 Statement of grounds (see 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6).

 Supporting arguments and citations.

 Legible copies of documents cited in arguments.

 Only documents that are not readily accessible by the 

Authority (e.g., CBA provisions, internal agency regs). 

 Need NOT submit:

• Authority and Federal court decisions.

• U.S.C.

• Current C.F.R.
Exceptions - Content

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.4)

46

 Not permitted:

If you should have known to, but did not raise below 

 (see also 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5):

 Evidence

 Factual assertions

 Arguments (including affirmative defenses)

 Requested remedies

 Potential challenges to a requested remedy
Exceptions – Failure to Raise Below

(5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.4, 2429.5)

47

 E.g., 67 FLRA 155, 156: Arb awarded U’s requested remedy: 

Quality Step Increase. Ag exceptions, challenging remedy, 

dismissed under § 2429.5.

 E.g., 63 FLRA 178, 179-80: Arb found Ag violated placement 

process by not posting internal vacancy announcement. Ag 

exception, alleging enforcement of placement process violated 

mgmt’s right to select from any appropriate source, dismissed 

under §2429.5.

 E.g., 68 FLRA 116, 117: Arb awarded U’s requested remedy by 

restoring grvt’s clinical privileges. Merely submitting Ag rules 

and regulations as part of the record, without any explanation, 

was insufficient to establish that Ag raised the argument before 

Arb that remedy violated those rules and regulations.
Exceptions – Failure to Raise Below

(5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.4, 2429.5)

48

 E.g., 63 FLRA 213, 214: Arb found Ag did not violate case law by 

canceling U rep’s telework. U exception alleged award contrary to §

7116(a)(1) and (2). Authority dismissed exception under § 2429.5: U 

could have, but did not, raise ULP claim to arb.

 E.g., 63 FLRA 70, 74: U filed exception alleging arb should not have 

considered parties’ bargaining history. Authority dismissed 

exception under § 2429.5: could have, but did not, raise to arb. 

 E.g., 68 FLRA 829, 832-33: Ag filed motion for reconsideration 

alleging that the Authority erred in dismissing exception under §

2429.5. Agency’s argument was based on misunderstanding of 

Authority’s decision

 E.g., 67 FLRA 609, 610-11: Authority dismissed Ag’s argument 

because Ag made § 7106(b) argument for the first time in its 

exceptions.
Exceptions – Failure to Raise Below

(5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.4, 2429.5)

49

 Addressed Issue Below In Contrary Way 

 64 FLRA 325, 328: Authority dismissed Ag’s argument on exceptions 

that parties’ agreement did not incorporate certain regulations where 

Ag conceded to arb that agreement did incorporate such regulations. 

 See also 68 FLRA 116, 118: Ag alleged award was contrary to law 

because a particular article in CBA was unenforceable. Authority 

dismissed Ag’s argument because Ag argued to arb that the same 

article could be enforced.

 But see 61 FLRA 637, 639: Authority denied U’s claim that 

Ag’s argument was barred by § 2429.5 where Ag showed that 

argument was raised in its post-hearing brief to arb. 
Exceptions – Failure to Raise Below

(5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.4, 2429.5)

50

 Opportunity to Argue Below, 67 FLRA 287, 288-89: Authority 

dismissed exceptions because Ag did not respond to 

arguments in U’s post-hearing brief during the two weeks 

between brief and award.

 See also 67 FLRA 715, 716-17: denying Ag’s motion for 

reconsideration; 67 FLRA 356, 357: Argument barred based on 

failure to respond to remedy requested in U’s closing brief; 67 FLRA 

257, 257: Argument barred based on U’s failure to dispute 

interpretation of CBA provision that the Ag argued before the arb. 

 But see 67 FLRA 387, 388-89: U should have argued that 

Agency denied the grievant due process below, but U could not 

have known to argue that Arbitrator’s award violated 

grievant’s due-process rights until award issued. 
Potential Dismissal or Denial of Exceptions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6)

51

 Under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a), no jurisdiction over awards 

relating to:

 Reductions in grade/removals based on unacceptable performance under 

5 U.S.C. § 4303. E.g., 61 FLRA 476, 477-78. 

 Removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in pay, or furlough 

of 30 or fewer days under 5 U.S.C. § 7512. E.g., 62 FLRA 107, 108. 

 Similar matters arising under other personnel systems. E.g., 59 FLRA 

545, 546 (removal of non-appropriated fund employees). 

 Matters “related to” – i.e., “inextricably intertwined with” – those 

matters. E.g., 62 FLRA 505, 506-07 (claim for compensatory damages). 

 Failure to raise or support ground or “otherwise fail[] to 

demonstrate a legally recognized basis for setting aside 

the award.”
Potential Dismissal or Denial of Exceptions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1) – Failure to Raise or Support)

“An exception [to an arbitration award] may be 

subject to dismissal or denial if . . . [t]he excepting 

party fails to raise and support a ground” 

recognized in 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(a)-(c), “or 

otherwise fails to demonstrate a legally recognized 

basis for setting aside the award” (on a ground not 

listed in the Authority’s Regulations).

5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1) (underlining added).

52
Failure to Raise

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1))

53

 The Authority will dismiss an exception that (1) does not raise 

a currently recognized ground for review, or (2) does not cite 

legal authority to establish a ground not currently recognized.

 Currently recognized grounds listed in 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6: 

 The arbitrator: (1) exceeded his or her authority; (2) was biased; or 

(3) denied the excepting party a fair hearing.

 The award: (1) is contrary to any law, rule or regulation; (2) fails to 

draw its essence from the parties’ agreement; (3) is based on a nonfact; 

(4) is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory so as to make 

implementation of the award impossible; or (5) is contrary to public 

policy.
Failure to Raise

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1))

 Members disagree about the level of specificity 

required to raise a recognized ground.

 Examples where all Members agreed to dismissal for 

failure to raise a ground: 67 FLRA 375, 375; 

67 FLRA 147, 147-48.

 Example where Members disagreed: 67 FLRA 239, 

240, 243 (2014) – fn.19 at 240 (DuBester); 

concurrence at 243 (Pizzella).

54
 If an exception raises a recognized ground, but does not 

offer sufficient argument or authority to support that 

ground, then the Authority denies exception.

 E.g., 68 FLRA 311, 313: Argument that an arb 

“misapplied the doctrine of past practice” does not raise 

a recognized ground for review.

 E.g., 67 FLRA 327, 328.

 Dismissing argument for failing to raise a ground.

 Denying another argument as raising, but not 

sufficiently supporting, a recognized ground.

 Disagreement in applying § 2425.6(e)(1) noted: fn.21 

at 328 (DuBester); fn.22 at 328 (Pope).

55

Failure to Support

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1))
 Other examples:

 69 FLRA 149, 151. Denying a contrary to law exception for failure to 

support.

 67 FLRA 330, 331. Dismissing for failure to raise; Member Pizzella 

writes separately to contrast with 67 FLRA 239.

 67 FLRA 333, 333-34. Dismissing certain exceptions for failure to 

raise, denying others for failure to support.

 67 FLRA 378, 379. Denying one exceeded-authority exception for 

failure to support, denying another on its merits.

 See also 67 FLRA 171, 172.

 To support a ground not currently recognized, a party must cite the 

legal authorities relied upon. 

56

Failure to Raise or Support

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1))
Exceptions - Forms

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.4)

57

• Forms for Filing Exceptions:

Optional

Available at www.flra.gov
Oppositions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.3)

58

 Not required

 30 days to file (from service of exceptions)

 Refers to other rules for computing filing date:

 5 C.F.R. § 2425.8 (use of Collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution Office)

 5 C.F.R. § 2429.21 (computation of time for filing papers)

 5 C.F.R. § 2429.22 (add’l time after service by mail or 

commercial delivery)
Oppositions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.3)

59

 Refers to other procedural requirements:

5 C.F.R. § 2429.24 (place and method of filing; 

acknowledgement)

5 C.F.R. § 2429.25 (number of copies and paper size)

5 C.F.R. § 2429.27 (service; statement of service)

5 C.F.R. § 2429.29 (content of filings)
Oppositions

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.5)

60

 Should address:

Arguments, including § 2429.5 issues.

Any request for expedited, abbreviated decision. 

 Should include:

Documents relied on UNLESS provided with 

exceptions.

Documents not readily accessible by the Authority.
“Other Documents”

(5 C.F.R. § 2429.26)

61

 Authority may consider “other documents,” but filing party 

must:

 Request leave to file

• 5 C.F.R. § 2429.26

 Argue why submission is necessary

• E.g., Addresses new argument raised by opposing party

 Serve copies on other parties
Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (CADRO) 

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.8)

62

 Objective: Encourage parties to resolve dispute through 

mediation and facilitation, rather than litigation

 Voluntary

 Before or after opposition filed

 Authority will toll filing for opposition if time hasn’t 

expired
Clarifying Records or Disputes

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.9)

63

 Direct parties to provide evidence (including arbitration 

record, see 5 C.F.R. § 2429.3)

 Direct parties to respond to requests for further 

information

 Meet with parties

 Direct oral argument

 Take any other appropriate action
Regulations List Grounds for Review

(5 C.F.R. § 2425.6)

64

 Contrary to Law, Rule, Regulation

 Private-Sector Grounds:

 Exceeded authority

 Bias

 Fair hearing

 Essence

 Nonfact

 Incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory so as to make 

implementation impossible

 Public policy

 Other? (Must provide cites).
Segment 4:

65

Grounds for Reviewing Arbitration Awards 

(Overview & Private-Sector Grounds)
FLRA Review

66

 Exceptions to arbitration awards = majority of Authority’s 

case load.

 Types of exceptions:

 Private-sector grounds (5 U.S.C. § 7122(a)(2); 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2425.6(a)(2)).

 Deference to arbitrator

 Contrary to law, rule, or regulation (5 U.S.C. § 7122(a)(1); 

5 C.F.R. § 2425.6 (a)(1)).

 De novo review of legal conclusions

 Deference to arbitrator’s factual findings
Private-Sector Grounds for Review

67

1. Exceeds Authority

(1) Arbitrator failed to resolve submitted issue (but arb 

not required to address every argument raised);

 Compare 65 FLRA 91, 95, with 64 FLRA 686, 687.

(2) Resolved an issue not submitted;

 Compare 63 FLRA 476, 478-79, with 51 FLRA 1645, 

1647; see also 67 FLRA 609, 611-12.

(3) Disregarded specific limitations on authority (but 

allegations of adding to/altering/modifying CBA 

won’t demonstrate, e.g., 64 FLRA 547, 550) OR

(4) Awarded relief to non-grievants (remedy too broad).

 E.g., 65 FLRA 657, 663-64.
Private-Sector Grounds for Review

1. Exceeds Authority (cont’d):

 Stipulated issue: Arbitrators do not exceed authority by 

addressing an issue that is necessary to decide a stipulated 

issue or by addressing an issue that necessarily arises from 

issues in stipulation.

 E.g., 67 FLRA 489, 492; 64 FLRA 982, 986-87. 

 68 FLRA 992, 993-95 (Member Pizzella dissenting): Arb did 

not exceed his authority when interpretation of a stipulated 

issue was not irrational, unfounded, or implausible, and the 

award was responsive to the issue as interpreted by the arb. 

 Framed issue: Absent a stipulation, arbitrator’s framing 

of issue gets substantial deference.

 E.g., 68 FLRA 189, 191-92; 64 FLRA 1126, 1129-30. 

68
Private-Sector Grounds for Review

69

2. Bias

(1) Award procured by improper means;

(2) Arbitrator was partial or corrupt; OR

(3) Arbitrator engaged in misconduct that prejudiced party’s 

rights.

 E.g., 67 FLRA 291, 292; 64 FLRA 713, 716-17.

3. Fair Hearing

(1) Arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and 

material evidence; OR

(2) Actions so prejudiced a party as to affect fairness of 

proceeding as a whole.

 E.g., 68 FLRA 116, 119; 67 FLRA at 292; 62 FLRA 360, 

362.
Private-Sector Grounds for Review

70

4. Essence

(1) Cannot be rationally derived from parties’ agreement;

(2) So unfounded in reason and fact, unconnected 

w/wording and purpose of agreement as to manifest 

infidelity to obligation of arbitrator;

(3) Implausible interpretation of agreement; OR

(4) Evidences manifest disregard of agreement.

 See 59 FLRA 540, 541 (granting exception).

 But see 69 FLRA 149, 152; 68 FLRA 83, 85-86.
Private-Sector Grounds for Review

71

5. Nonfact

 Central fact is clearly erroneous, but for which

different result.

 Cannot challenge factual matters disputed before 

arbitrator.

 E.g., 67 FLRA 306, 308; 64 FLRA 692, 696.

6. Incomplete, Ambiguous, or Contradictory

 Must make implementation of the award impossible.

 E.g., 64 FLRA 622, 624; 56 FLRA 1057, 1074. 
Private-Sector Grounds for Review

72

7. Public Policy

(1) Must be explicit, well-defined, and dominant; AND

(2) Violation of policy must be clearly shown.

 E.g., 61 FLRA 88, 91.

8. Other?

 Must provide citations (see 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6) and 

explain how cites support finding award deficient.
Additional Grounds for Review

73

 Contrary to law, rule, or regulation

 See, e.g., 69 FLRA 149, 151; 69 FLRA 144, 145; 68 FLRA 531, 532-33; 68 

FLRA 311, 314-16; 68 FLRA 116, 118-19.

 Absent allegation of nonfact, Authority defers to arbitrator’s factual 

findings. See, e.g., 66 FLRA 74, 78.

 U.S. Constitution

 Statutes

 Regulations

 Government-wide

 Governing agency rules or regs
Separate and Independent Grounds

74

 When award based on separate and independent grounds, 

appealing party must establish that all grounds are 

deficient. E.g., 68 FLRA 324, 326; 67 FLRA 597, 604; 65 

FLRA 946, 949.

 For example:

 If arb bases award on interpretation of two CBA provisions 

and interpretation of either provision provides a sufficient 

basis for the award, excepting party must show arb’s 

interpretation of both provisions deficient. See 67 FLRA at 

604.

 If arb bases award on interpretations of CBA and Statute, 

excepting party must show arb’s interpretation of both 

CBA and Statute are deficient. See, e.g., 66 FLRA 325, 332.
Challenges to Arbitrability Findings

75

 Procedural arbitrability

 Whether procedural conditions to arbitrability have been met or 

excused. E.g., 64 FLRA 772, 773-74; 64 FLRA 612, 613. 

 E.g., determinations re: timeliness (64 FLRA 772, 773), who’s 

covered by NGP (61 FLRA 681, 682-83). 

 Can’t challenge directly, but can challenge based on: 

 Bias (e.g., 61 FLRA 681, 682-83; 60 FLRA 83, 86).

 Exceeded authority (e.g., 61 FLRA 681, 682-83; 60 FLRA 83, 

86). 

 Fair hearing (e.g., 60 FLRA 813, 815-16).

 Law that establishes procedural req’ts that apply to NGP (e.g., 

68 FLRA 728, 730-31 (filing period for ULPs established by the 

Statute); 58 FLRA 480, 481-82. But see 67 FLRA 264, 264-65).

 But see 68 FLRA 852, 853-54 (procedural-arbitrability

determinations cannot be challenged on essence grounds); 68 

FLRA at 730 (same).
Challenges to Arbitrability Findings

76

 Substantive arbitrability

 Whether subject matter of dispute is arbitrable.

 E.g., 64 FLRA 612, 613.

 If determination is based on CBA, then essence standard.

 E.g., 64 FLRA 606, 609.

 If determination is based on law, then de novo standard.

 E.g., 64 FLRA 1132, 1133-34.
Segment 5:

77

Management Rights

(5 U.S.C. § 7106)
Burden in Arbitration Context

78

 Party asserting that arbitration award is contrary to 

management rights must show both:

 Award affects management right(s), and

 Contract provision arbitrator enforced was not negotiated 

under § 7106(b).

 E.g., 67 FLRA 597, 601-02 (Member Pizzella dissenting); 

66 FLRA 426, 428 & n.5.
Management Rights - § 7106

79

 Does the award affect a management right under 

§ 7106(a)?

 If so, was arbitrator enforcing:

 Contract provision negotiated under § 7106(b) (for any 

management-right claims); or 

 applicable law (for § 7106(a)(2) claims)?

See 65 FLRA 113, 115; 65 FLRA 102, 106 (Chairman Pope 

concurring in part).
Management Rights - § 7106

80

 § 7106(a)(1), to determine the agency’s:

 Mission. E.g., 59 FLRA 159, 163; 58 FLRA 341, 342-43.

 Budget. E.g., 61 FLRA 201, 205.

 Organization. E.g., 63 FLRA 530, 532; 58 FLRA 175, 178-79.

 Number of Employees. E.g., 46 FLRA 298, 316-17.

 Internal Security Practices. E.g., 64 FLRA 1153, 1156-58.
Management Rights - § 7106

81

 § 7106(a)(2)(A):

 Hire employees. E.g., 62 FLRA 93, 94-95.

 Assign employees. E.g., 64 FLRA 161, 165; 63 FLRA 222, 225.

 Direct employees. E.g., 64 FLRA 532, 534; 63 FLRA 450, 

452; 62 FLRA 15, 16-17.

 Layoff employees. E.g., 64 FLRA 813, 815-16.

 Retain employees in the agency. E.g., 60 FLRA 839, 

841-45; 58 FLRA 344, 345-46.
Management Rights - § 7106

82

 § 7106(a)(2)(A) cont’d:

 Suspend employees. E.g., 48 FLRA 908, 911-12.

 Remove employees. E.g., 46 FLRA 298, 319-20.

 Reduce in grade or pay. E.g., 53 FLRA 539, 579-80; 

40 FLRA 1181, 1200-02.

 Take other disciplinary action. E.g., 62 FLRA 174, 

180-81; 61 FLRA 341, 346-47.
Management Rights - § 7106

83

 § 7106(a)(2)(B):

 Assign work. E.g., 65 FLRA 13, 15; 64 FLRA 136, 

138; 63 FLRA 530, 532.

Make determinations with respect to 

contracting out. E.g., 64 FLRA 474, 479; 

61 FLRA 209, 210.

 Determine the personnel by which 

agency operations will be conducted. E.g., 

61 FLRA 371, 373-74.
Management Rights - § 7106

84

 § 7106(a)(2)(C):

 With respect to filling positions, make selections for 

appointments from:

 (1) among properly ranked and certified candidates 

for promotion; or

 (2) any other appropriate source

 E.g., 65 FLRA 13, 15; 64 FLRA 76, 77; 62 FLRA 419, 424; 61 FLRA 

226, 228-29; 61 FLRA 618, 622; 59 FLRA 780, 782-83; 58 FLRA 411, 

412.

 § 7106(a)(2)(D):

 Take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out 

the agency mission during emergencies 

 E.g., 58 FLRA 549, 551-52.
Management Rights - § 7106

85

 Effects on management’s rights:

 Look to Authority precedent. What constitutes an effect 

is not necessarily self-evident.

 For example, mere fact that an award requires agency to 

assign work to someone does not mean it affects right to 

assign work. E.g., 41 FLRA 795, 823.

 Parties should brief arbitrators on possible effects 

(and/or exceptions to management’s rights); arbitrators 

should be cognizant of possible effects and exceptions.
Management Rights - § 7106

86

 What if the award does not affect a § 7106(a) 

management right?

 Exception denied!

 E.g., 64 FLRA 76, 77-78.

 What if the award does affect a § 7106(a) 

management right?

 Then ...
Management Rights - § 7106

87

 ... ask whether the arbitrator was enforcing:

 A provision negotiated under § 7106(b)(1), (2), or 

(3) (for all § 7106(a) rights); and/or

 An applicable law (for § 7106(a)(2) rights).
Management Rights - Exceptions

88

 § 7106(b)(1):

 Numbers, types, and grades

 Of employees or positions

 Assigned to any

Organizational subdivision,

Work project, or

Tour of duty

 E.g., 54 FLRA 807, 816-17; 32 FLRA 944, 959.

 Permissive (an agency may, but is not required to, bargain); 

but enforceable in arbitration
Management Rights - Exceptions

89

 § 7106(b)(1) (cont’d):

 Technology, methods, & means of performing work

Technology = technical method used in accomplishing or 

furthering performance of agency’s work. E.g., 62 FLRA 

321, 326.

Method = the way agency performs its work (“how”)

Means = any instrumentality, including an agent, tool, 

device, measure, plan, or policy used by an agency for 

the accomplishment or furtherance of the performance 

of its work (“with what”). E.g., 54 FLRA 1582, 1589-91 & n.6.
Management Rights - Exceptions

90

 § 7106(b)(2): The “procedures which management 

officials of the agency will observe in exercising” any 

management right under § 7106

 Look to the case law

 E.g., 63 FLRA 585, 586; 62 FLRA 328, 330. 

 Mandatory (agency must bargain); enforceable in 

arbitration
Management Rights - Exceptions

91

 § 7106(b)(3): “appropriate arrangements for employees 

adversely affected by the exercise of” any management right 

under § 7106

 Ask whether the provision, as interpreted and applied by 

the arbitrator:

 Is an “arrangement” for employees adversely affected by 

the exercise of a management right; and

 “Abrogates” management’s rights. 

 Don’t apply “tailoring” or “excessive interference” 

(different from negotiability). See 65 FLRA 113, 116 

(Member Beck concurring).

 But see 739 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Management Rights - Applicable Laws

92

 For § 7106(a)(2) rights, ask whether the arbitrator was enforcing an 

“applicable law.”

 Applicable Law: lawfully enacted statutes, the U.S. Constitution, 

controlling judicial decisions, executive orders issued pursuant to 

express statutory authorization, and regulations having the force and 

effect of law. E.g., 42 FLRA 1333, 1337.

 Regulations have the “force and effect of law” where they:

 (1) Affect individual rights and obligations;

 (2) Were promulgated pursuant to an explicit or implicit 

delegation of legislative authority by Congress; and

 (3) Were promulgated in accordance with procedural 

requirements imposed by Congress.

• E.g., 65 FLRA 657, 661-63; 61 FLRA 201, 206.
Management Rights - Exceptions

93

 Arbitral remedies:

 Must provide a remedy for a violation of either an 

“applicable law” within the meaning of § 7106(a)(2) 

or a contract provision that was negotiated pursuant 

to § 7106(b) of the Statute.

 But need not “reconstruct” what management would 

have done in the absence of a violation.

 See 65 FLRA 102, 106-07 (Chairman Pope 

concurring in part).
Segment 6:

94

Arbitral Enforcement of,

&

Consistency of Awards with,

Regulations
Award Contrary to Regulations

95

Fort Campbell, 37 FLRA 186, 190-96:

 Award must be consistent with any rule or regulation 

that governs the matter in dispute.

 Government-wide regulations treated differently 

than agency-specific regulations.
Government-Wide Regulations

96

 Rules, regulations, and official declarations of policy that 

are generally applicable throughout the federal government 

and are binding on the federal agencies and officials to 

whom they apply. E.g., 53 FLRA 403, 416.

 If gov’t-wide regulation preceded CBA, regulation governs.

 Generally, if CBA preceded gov’t-wide regulation, CBA 

governs until it expires. E.g., 65 FLRA 817, 819.

 Exception: gov’t-wide regulations that implement 

5 U.S.C. § 2302 (prohibited personnel practices). 

See 60 FLRA 398, 399 n.6 (reciting the standard).
Agency Regulations

97

 Rules, regulations, and official declarations of policy 

prescribed by an agency to govern matters within that 

agency. See Fort Campbell, 37 FLRA 186, 192-95.

 Govern matters only when there’s no applicable, 

conflicting CBA provision. E.g., 67 FLRA 183, 184-85; 

64 FLRA 1126, 1128; 63 FLRA 191, 193-94.

 A party alleging that an award is contrary to a governing 

agency regulation must provide a copy of the agency 

regulation (or citation to the C.F.R.) and address whether 

there is an applicable, conflicting CBA provision. 

See Fort Campbell, 37 FLRA at 195 n.2.
Rule on CBA Enforcement

98

 CBA, not agency regulations, governs matters to 

which they both apply when there is a conflict. 

E.g., 64 FLRA 1126, 1128-29.

 Reason: Statute does not prevent agency from 

agreeing to a CBA that alters or modifies agency 

regulation. See Fort Campbell, 37 FLRA 186, 194.

 Authority defers to an arbitrator’s finding that CBA 

governs. E.g., 41 FLRA 1206, 1209-11.
Incorporation

99

 An arbitrator may find that agency regulations have been 

incorporated into CBA. E.g., 51 FLRA 1210, 1217; 41 FLRA 

284, 292-93.

 And if CBA says matters will be conducted “in accordance 

with an agency regulation,” that wording “effectively 

incorporates” the regulation into the CBA, e.g., 51 FLRA 

1210, 1216-17 – unless the arbitrator indicates otherwise in 

the award, see 65 FLRA 13, 17 n.5.

 Review of the arbitrator’s interpretation and application of 

the incorporated agency regulations = essence standard. 

E.g., 65 FLRA 1004, 1008.
Segment 7:

100

Arbitral Remedies

&

Backpay
Arbitrator Remedies

101

 Broad remedial discretion. E.g., 64 FLRA 922, 924.

 Authority denies exceptions that don’t support 

setting aside remedy/attempt to substitute different 

remedy. E.g., 55 FLRA 789, 793.
Arbitrator Remedies - Limitations

102

 Private and federal sectors: Can’t dispense “own 

brand of industrial justice.” E.g., 64 FLRA 916, 920.

 Additional federal-sector exceptions – stem from:

 Laws and regulations governing employment

 Expanded scope of grievance procedure (arbitrators 

substitute for other forums)
Monetary Remedies

103

 Sovereign immunity. E.g., 68 FLRA 960, 963-66.

 Must be explicit statutory waiver. E.g., 52 FLRA 46, 49.

 Common examples:

 Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596. E.g., 52 FLRA 46, 49.

 FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. E.g., 63 FLRA 100, 103.

 May be raised at any time, even if not raised before 

arbitrator. E.g., 68 FLRA 841, 842.

 No sovereign immunity waiver required for monetary 

remedies that are “equitable” in nature. E.g., 68 FLRA 960, 

965.
The Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. § 5596): Requirements

104

 Unjustified or unwarranted personnel action

 Violation of applicable law, rule, regulation, or CBA. 

Compare 56 FLRA 887, 888, with 68 FLRA 841, 842-43.

Includes governing agency-wide regs. 

E.g., 64 FLRA 922, 923.

 Resulting in loss of pay, allowances, or differentials

 “Pay, leave, and other monetary employment benefits to which 

an employee is entitled by statute or regulation ....” 5 C.F.R. 

§ 550.803; accord 60 FLRA 202, 212.
The Back Pay Act: “Resulted in”

105

 Causal connection necessary. E.g., 63 FLRA 646, 648.

 Essential because backpay is make-whole remedy. 

 FLRA reviews for evidence of connection; does not require 

particular words or phrases (such as “but for”). E.g., 52 

FLRA 938, 942.

 No requirement to identify specific employees when award 

sufficiently identifies specific circumstances warranting 

backpay. E.g., 68 FLRA 718, 720
The Back Pay Act: Recovery Period

106

 Recovery period cannot exceed “a period beginning 

more than 6 years before the date of the filing of a 

timely appeal” (e.g., a grievance). 

5 U.S.C. § 5596(b)(4). Accord 60 FLRA 565, 570.

 Does not establish when period can end/total 

duration of recovery period. See 67 FLRA 384, 385; 

60 FLRA 565, 570.
Interest on Backpay

107

 Statutory entitlement (5 U.S.C. § 5596(b)(2)(A)).

 Begins on date of loss; ends on a date not more than 

30 days before date on which paid. 

E.g., 58 FLRA 447, 447.

 Common arbitrator error: Denying interest. 

E.g., 64 FLRA 906, 907.
Segment 8:

108

Attorney Fees
Attorney Fees - Sources of Authority to Award

109

 Primary: Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596

 Others: FLSA, Privacy Act, and Rehabilitation Act
Attorney Fees: Prerequisites I

110

 The Back Pay Act requires that an award of fees be:

 (1) Awarded in conjunction with backpay award;

 (2) Reasonable and related to personnel action;

 (3) Awarded in accordance with standards 

established under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g).

 E.g., 64 FLRA 925, 928.
Attorney Fees: Prerequisites II

111

 Standards established under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g):

 Prevailing party

 Incurred by the employee

 Warranted in the interest of justice

 Reasonable amount

 E.g., 64 FLRA 925, 928.

 Note: Arb must make specific findings 

supporting each pertinent statutory requirement. 

Id.
Attorney Fees: Standard of 7701(g)

112

 Prevailing party

 Enforceable judgment on the merits. 

 See, e.g., 68 FLRA 120, 122; 65 FLRA 921, 922 (citing 

Buckhannon, 532 U.S. 598 (2001)).

 Degree of success not a consideration. 

 E.g., 57 FLRA 784, 786.
Attorney Fees: Fees Incurred

113

 Attorney-client relationship. E.g., 53 FLRA 1688, 

1691.

 Legal services rendered. Id.

 Under certain circumstances, attorney fees may be 

awarded for the services of non-attorney 

representatives. E.g., 63 FLRA 492, 493-94.

 5 C.F.R. § 550.807(f): fees for law clerks, law students, 

and paralegals assisting attorneys.
Attorney Fees: Interest of Justice

114

 There are two ways to meet § 7701(g)(1)’s 

interest-of-justice standard:

 1. Under Allen v. USPS, 2 M.S.P.R. 420, 434-35 

(1980)

 By satisfying one of the “Allen Criteria.”

2. Under the Statute if:

 Service to federal workforce; or

 Benefit to the public in maintaining the action.

 See, e.g., 64 FLRA 925, 928.
Attorney Fees: Allen criteria

115

 1 - Prohibited personnel practice

 2 - Clearly w/o merit/wholly unfounded or employee 

substantially innocent

 3 - Bad faith

 4 - Gross procedural error; OR

 5 - Agency knew or should have known would not prevail
Attorney Fees: Allen 1

116

 Prohibited personnel practice

 5 U.S.C. § 2302

 Distinct from “unjustified and unwarranted personnel 

action.” E.g., 64 FLRA 819, 821.
Attorney Fees: Allen 2

117

 Clearly without merit/wholly unfounded

 Examine competing interests of fault of employee and 

reasonableness of agency action. E.g., 68 FLRA 690, 

691-92; 64 FLRA 925, 929.

 Employee substantially innocent

 Employee prevails on substantive rather than technical 

grounds on major charges. E.g., 63 FLRA 317, 319-20.

 Focal point is result of merits award. 

 Id. at 319.
Attorney Fees: Allen 3

118

 Bad faith

 Action brought to “harass” the employee. E.g., 64 FLRA 

925, 928. 

 Action brought to exert improper pressure on the 

employee to act in certain ways. Id. 
Attorney Fees: Allen 4

119

 Gross procedural error

 Prolonged proceeding or severely prejudiced employees. 

E.g., 61 FLRA 582, 586.

 More than simple harmful error warranting reversal of 

agency action. Id.
Attorney Fees: Allen 5

120

 Agency knew or should have known would not prevail

 Analysis of agency evidence and agency conduct of 

investigation. See, e.g., 65 FLRA 575, 578.

 Focal point is reasonableness of agency actions in view of 

information available at the time of the action. Id.

 Penalty an aspect of merits; if penalty mitigated on 

evidence available to agency, and no new info presented at 

hearing, then agency knew or should have known. 

See 66 FLRA 22, 24 & n.5.
Attorney Fees: Reasonable Amount

121

 Billing rate

 Reasonable number of hours

 See, e.g., 64 FLRA 1003, 1007-09.

 See 65 FLRA 54 No explicit provision for interest on attorney fees; 

therefore, arbitrators not permitted to award retroactive application of 

current hourly rate to make up for the delay in payment of fees.

 Degree of success is a consideration. 

 See, e.g., 65 FLRA 452, 454.
Attorney Fees: Procedural Notes

122

 Petition for fees and opportunity to respond

 May resolve in merits award, but ...

 Back Pay Act jurisdiction

 Doctrine of functus officio does not permit refusal to consider timely 

request.

 Arbitrator may resolve fee issue at any time during arbitration, or 

within reasonable period after award becomes “final and binding,” or 

the parties agree to a different period. E.g., 67 FLRA 721, 721-22; 

67 FLRA 352, 352-53.

 Requests for fees determined by “appropriate authority” as 

defined by 5 C.F.R § 550.807.
Segment 9:

123

Judicial Review of Authority Decisions
Judicial Review

124

 § 7123(a): FLRA decisions in arb cases reviewable only if “the 

order involves an unfair labor practice.”

 Courts have construed narrowly: Though discussion need not 

be explicit, an FLRA order must “reach and discuss the 

merits” of a statutory ULP or “in some ‘other way affect[] 

substantive law regarding’ a statutory issue.” 752 F.3d 453, 

459 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also 665 F.3d 1339, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 

2012); 507 F.3d 697, 698-700 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

 Look at order - not award, not grievance. 453 F.3d 500, 504 (D.C. Cir. 

2006).

 Conduct must actually have been characterized as a ULP. 824 F.2d 61, 

66 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Judicial Review

125

 No jurisdiction where CBA was basis for arb’s award 

and FLRA’s review. E.g., 981 F.2d 1339, 1342-44 

(D.C. Cir. 1993). 

 No automatic grant of jurisdiction when an agency 

claims order violates sovereign immunity. 

 “Routine statutory and regulatory questions—in this case, the 

meaning of the “shall not exceed” clause in the Back Pay Act 

and “administrative error” in [the agency’s] assignment 

policy—are not transformed into constitutional or 

jurisdictional issues merely because a statute waives sovereign 

immunity.” See 784 F.3d 821, 823-24 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Judicial Review

126

 Legislative history: Given limited nature of FLRA’s review, 

would be inappropriate to have subsequent review by the 

courts of appeal in such matters. See, e.g., 507 F.3d 697, 699-

700 (D.C. Cir. 2007); 824 F.2d 61, 63 (D.C. Cir. 1987); 792 

F.2d 25, 28-29 (2d. Cir. 1986). 

 Standard of review: 

 Arbitrary/capricious;

 Court will uphold remedial order for a ULP “‘unless it can be shown that 

the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can 

fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.’” 647 F.3d 514, 517 (4th 

Cir. 2011) (quoting 910 F.2d 964, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)).
THE END

127

Questions,

Feedback,

&

Thank You For Participating