Federal Labor Relations Authority

Quarterly Digest Report: October 1, 2023 – December 31, 2023

The following case digests are summaries of decisions/orders issued by the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of each case. Descriptions 

contained in these case digests are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 1012, 73 FLRA 704 (2023)

The Arbitrator denied a grievance alleging the Agency violated the parties’ 

collective-bargaining agreement by changing certain employees’ break areas. The Union filed 

exceptions to the award on essence, bias, and fair-hearing grounds. The Authority partially

dismissed the Union’s bias and fair-hearing exceptions, and denied the remaining exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: SSA, 73 FLRA 708 (2023)

The Arbitrator issued: a merits award, finding the Agency discriminated and engaged in 

reprisal against the grievant; a compensatory-damages award; and a punitive-damages award. 

The Agency filed exceptions to the compensatory-damages and punitive-damages awards on 

exceeded-authority, contrary-to-law, and essence grounds. The Authority: (1) found the 

exceptions were timely filed; (2) denied a request by the Arbitrator to file two amicus-curiae 

briefs under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.9; (3) partially dismissed and partially denied the 

exceeded-authority exception; (4) granted the contrary-to-law exception and set aside the 

punitive-damages award; and (5) denied the essence exception. 
CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 3184, 73 FLRA 715 (2023)

The Arbitrator sustained a grievance challenging a suspension and later awarded limited 

attorney fees (fee award). In AFGE, Local 3184, 73 FLRA 471 (2023), the Authority granted the 

Union’s nonfact and contrary-to-law exceptions to the fee award, and remanded the matter to the 

parties for resubmission to the Arbitrator for further findings regarding the attorney-fees issue. 

In a remand award, the Arbitrator awarded attorney fees, but did not include any fees 

requested for the post-arbitration litigation of the fee dispute. The Union filed an exception to 

the remand award on contrary-to-law grounds. Because there was no basis for concluding that 

the Union knew or should have known to make arguments to the Arbitrator specifically about its 

entitlement to attorney fees for post-arbitration litigation, the Authority rejected the Agency’s 

claim that the Union could not make such arguments for the first time in its exceptions. On the 

merits, because the remand award was not a fully articulated, reasoned decision, the Authority

granted the Union’s contrary-to-law exception. Further, because the Authority could not

determine from the record the reasonableness of the request for the fee-dispute litigation, it

remanded the matter to the parties for resubmission to an arbitrator to resolve that issue.

CASE DIGEST: NTEU, Chapter 14, 73 FLRA 718 (2023)

The Union filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority’s decision in NTEU, 

Chapter 14, 73 FLRA 613 (2023) (Chapter 14). The Authority found the motion did not 

establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration, because it merely attempted to 

relitigate the Authority’s conclusions in Chapter 14 and raised arguments that the Union could 

have made, but did not make, in its exceptions. Therefore, the Authority denied the motion.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 987, 73 FLRA 722 (2023)

The Arbitrator found the grievance arbitrable and denied it on the merits. The Authority 

found that the parties’ agreement expressly and unequivocally precluded arbitrators from 

resolving both threshold arbitrability issues and issues concerning a grievance’s merits. 

Accordingly, the Authority granted the Union’s exceeded-authority exception, set aside the 

Arbitrator’s merits findings, and remanded the dispute to the parties.
CASE DIGEST: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Complex, Victorville, Cal., 73 FLRA 725 

(2023)

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Agency was selecting employees for overtime in 

a manner that conflicted with the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. After the Arbitrator 

sustained the grievance, the Agency filed essence and contrary-to-law exceptions. In its essence 

exception, the Agency argued the grievance was untimely because the Union was aware of the 

grieved event earlier than the date the Arbitrator identified. In its contrary-to-law exception, the 

Agency argued the Arbitrator improperly placed the burden on the Agency to defend its 

overtime-selection actions. Because the Agency merely challenged a factual finding underlying 

the timeliness determination, the Authority denied the essence exception. As the Agency failed 

to demonstrate that the Arbitrator was obligated to evaluate the evidence differently, the 

Authority denied the contrary-to-law exception. 

CASE DIGEST: Defense Health Agency & AFGE, AFL-CIO et al., 73 FLRA 728 (2023)

After the Department of Defense transferred employees from various military branches to 

the Defense Health Agency (DHA), an FLRA Regional Director (the RD) issued a decision and 

order finding the DHA is the successor employer of those employees. The RD also considered 

four proposals for dividing the transferred employees among interested incumbent unions. 

Finding the Association of Civilian Technicians (ACT) and the National Association of 

Independent Labor submitted proposals that would not result in appropriate units, the RD 

rejected them.

The RD then determined the American Federation of Government Employees and the 

National Federation of Federal Employees submitted a joint proposal that would result in three 

appropriate units. Additionally, he found these unions represented a sufficiently predominant 

percentage of the proposed units to render representation elections unnecessary. Consequently, 

the RD approved this proposal and certified the three units. ACT filed an application for review 

of the RD’s decision. Because ACT did not explain how the RD erred or support its argument, 

the Authority denied the application.

CASE DIGEST: FEA, Stateside Reg., 73 FLRA 747 (2023)

The Union grieved the Agency’s decision to change certain excepted-service positions to 

competitive-service positions when it filled vacancies or new positions. In an initial award, the 

Arbitrator found that the grievance was not substantively arbitrable. In Federal Education 

Association, Stateside Region, 73 FLRA 32 (2022), the Authority granted the Union’s 

contrary-to-law exception challenging that determination, and remanded the matter to the parties 

for resubmission to the Arbitrator to render a decision on the grievance’s merits. 

In a remand award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the Agency’s action 

did not violate law or the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The Union filed exceptions 

to the remand award on nonfact, bias, essence, and contrary-to-law grounds. Because the Union 

did not demonstrate that the remand award was deficient, the Authority denied the exceptions.
CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 2053, Council 243, 73 FLRA 752 (2023)

The Arbitrator issued an award dismissing, as untimely, a Union grievance alleging the 

Agency failed to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Union filed 

exceptions alleging the award was contrary to law and public policy. The Authority denied the 

exceptions, holding that arbitrators may lawfully enforce contractual time limits for filing 

grievances that are shorter than the FLSA’s filing periods. Chairman Grundmann concurred.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 2338, 73 FLRA 756 (2023)

After the parties informally resolved several issues related to a grievance, and the Agency 

provided most of the grievance’s requested remedies, the Union submitted the grievance’s 

remaining, unresolved requests for compensation to arbitration. The Arbitrator denied the

requests for additional compensation. The Union filed exceptions on 

ambiguous-and-contradictory, contrary-to-law, exceeded-authority, and essence grounds. The 

Authority denied the exceptions because they failed to demonstrate the award was deficient.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Correctional Inst., Englewood, Colo.,

73 FLRA 762 (2023)

The Arbitrator determined that the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining 

agreement and law when it failed to provide hazard-pay differential for bargaining-unit 

employees due to ambient exposure to COVID-19 in the correctional facility, and awarded 

backpay. The Agency filed exceptions to the backpay remedy on contrary-to-law grounds. The 

Authority found the backpay remedy was contrary to law, and set aside that portion of the award.

Because the Authority left the Arbitrator’s contractual-violation finding undisturbed but set aside 

the only remedy, the Authority remanded the matter to the parties for resubmission to the 

Arbitrator, absent settlement, for an appropriate remedy, if any.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 2344, 73 FLRA 765 (2023)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency did not violate the parties’ collectivebargaining agreement by allowing a supervisor, instead of bargaining-unit employees, to work 

overtime. The Union filed exceptions to the award on essence, contrary-to-law, and bias

grounds. The Authority partially dismissed the Union’s contrary-to-law and bias exceptions

because the Union raised arguments that it failed to present to the Arbitrator. Because the 

Union’s remaining arguments failed to demonstrate that the award was deficient, the Authority

denied the remaining exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Local 2031, 73 FLRA 769 (2023)

In this case, the Authority considered the negotiability of one proposal. Because the 

Agency failed to support its argument that the proposal was outside the duty to bargain, the 

Authority found that the Agency waived its nonnegotiability argument. Consequently, the 

Authority concluded that the proposal was within the Agency’s duty to bargain. 

Chairman Grundmann concurred.
CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 2369, 73 FLRA 772 (2023)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency did not violate the parties’ 

collective-bargaining agreement by denying the grievant, a part-time employee, the opportunity 

to earn more than three credit hours on a Saturday. The Union filed exceptions. The Authority 

found the Union’s arguments sufficiently raised essence exceptions, but the Authority denied the 

exceptions on the merits because the Union failed to demonstrate the award was deficient.