Federal Labor Relations Authority

Quarterly Digest Report: January 1, 2024 – March 31, 2024

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: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Inst., Ashland, Ky., 73 FLRA 775 (2024)

The Agency reassigned the grievant pending an investigation. After finding the Agency 

violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and the parties’ 

collective-bargaining agreement, the Arbitrator directed the Agency to return the grievant to his 

original post and to make him whole for missed overtime opportunities caused by the 

reassignment. The Agency filed exceptions arguing that the award was contrary to law and

based on a nonfact. The Authority dismissed the contrary-to-law exceptions for failure to raise 

them before the Arbitrator. Because the award did not contain sufficient findings for the 

Authority to assess the nonfact exception, the Authority remanded the matter to the parties to 

obtain clarification from the Arbitrator, absent settlement.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 916, 73 FLRA 778 (2024)

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

collective-bargaining agreements when it denied the grievant weekend overtime. The Arbitrator 

found there was a past practice of denying weekend overtime to employees who missed work on 

the day immediately preceding the overtime shift. The Union filed exceptions to the award on 

contrary-to-Agency-regulation and essence grounds. The Authority denied the exceptions 

because they failed to demonstrate the award was deficient.
CASE DIGEST: Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau & NTEU, Chapter 335,

73 FLRA 781 (2024)

The Arbitrator found the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement 

(CBA) by issuing the grievant a letter of reprimand without first giving him notice and an 

opportunity to respond. The Agency filed exceptions to the award. In Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB), 73 FLRA 670 (2023), the Authority denied the Agency’s 

exceeded-authority, essence, and due-process exceptions; revised the test it will apply in 

assessing management-rights exceptions where arbitrators have found CBA violations; and gave

the parties an opportunity to file supplemental briefs addressing how the revised test should

apply in this case. After both parties filed supplemental briefs, the Authority denied the 

Agency’s public-policy and contrary-to-law exceptions involving management rights. 

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DHS, U.S. CBP, U.S. Border Patrol, Rio Grande Valley Sector, 

Edinburg, Tex., 73 FLRA 784 (2024).

The Arbitrator found the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement by 

placing the grievant on an administrative detail for an unreasonable time period. Applying the 

test for resolving management-rights exceptions articulated in Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau, 73 FLRA 670 (2023), the Authority determined that the Arbitrator’s interpretation and 

application of the parties’ agreement affected management’s right to assign work under 

§ 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). 

Because neither the award nor the Union demonstrated that the relevant provisions of the 

agreement were enforceable under § 7106(b) of the Statute, the Authority found the award 

contrary to law. 

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Inst., Mendota, Cal., 73 FLRA 788 (2024)

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Agency failed to pay the grievants the proper 

overtime-premium rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In framing the issues for 

resolution, the Arbitrator included only one of the Agency’s proposed arbitrability arguments. In 

a brief award, the Arbitrator determined that the grievance was timely and sustained it on the 

merits. The Agency raised essence, contrary-to-law, and incomplete-or-contradictory 

exceptions. The Authority denied one of the Agency’s essence exceptions, finding that the 

parties’ collective-bargaining agreement did not require the Arbitrator to frame all suggested 

arbitrability issues for resolution. However, because the award did not provide sufficient 

findings to resolve two of the Agency’s remaining exceptions, the Authority remanded it.
CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 153, 73 FLRA 792 (2024)

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

collective-bargaining agreement or § 7106(b) of the Federal Service Labor-Management 

Relations Statute when it (1) required the grievant to complete certain trainings, and (2) issued

the grievant an oral admonishment for failing to complete one of the trainings. The Union filed 

exceptions to the award on contrary-to-law, contrary-to-public policy, exceeded-authority, and 

“other” grounds. Because the Union failed to raise one of its arguments to the Arbitrator, the 

Authority partially dismissed the exceptions. The Authority denied the remaining exceptions 

because the Union failed to support them. 

CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of VA, Winston-Salem, N.C., 73 FLRA 794 (2024) 

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by

failing to take certain actions before denying the grievant a career-ladder promotion. The 

Arbitrator awarded a make-whole remedy and retained jurisdiction to resolve any disputes 

regarding the remedy. The Union asked the Arbitrator to clarify whether the make-whole 

remedy included backpay for lost overtime opportunities. The Arbitrator then issued another 

award (the supplemental award), finding her retained jurisdiction included the overtime issue and 

that the make-whole remedy included backpay for any overtime opportunities the grievant 

missed due to the Agency’s contract violations. The Agency excepted to the supplemental award 

on exceeded-authority, fair-hearing, nonfact, and contrary-to-law grounds. The Authority denied 

the Agency’s exceptions because they did not demonstrate the supplemental award was deficient. 

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DHS, CBP, 73 FLRA 799 (2024)

The Agency failed to pay nightwork premiums, authorized by the Customs Officer Pay 

Reform Act (COPRA), to customs officers taking eight or more hours of parental or COVID-19 

emergency leave in a pay period. The Arbitrator determined that the Agency was erroneously 

applying a Federal Employees Pay Act (FEPA) limitation called the “eight-hour rule” to 

COPRA-covered nightwork. 

The Authority requested an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advisory opinion 

because several of the Agency’s exceptions to the Arbitrator’s award required an interpretation 

of OPM-issued regulations and guidance. In response, OPM provided an advisory opinion, in 

which it determined that FEPA’s eight-hour rule does not apply to leave payments for employees

receiving COPRA nightwork pay. Based on that opinion, the Authority denied the Agency’s 

exceptions contending that the award was contrary to FEPA, the statutes that created parental 

and emergency leave, and related regulations and guidance. The Authority also denied in part, 

and dismissed in part, the Agency’s remaining exceptions.

The Arbitrator further found that the Agency did not commit an unfair labor practice by 

failing to comply with an earlier arbitration award concerning the eight-hour rule or repudiating a 

related settlement agreement. The Authority denied the Union’s exceptions to those findings.

Chairman Grundmann concurred.
CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of the Army, Ariz. Dep’t of Emergency & Mil. Affs., Ariz. Army 

Nat’l Guard & Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, Chapter 61, 73 FLRA 809

(2024)

The Union filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority’s decision in U.S. 

Department of the Army, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, Arizona Army 

National Guard, 73 FLRA 617 (2023) (Arizona Army National Guard). The Authority found the 

motion did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration, because it 

merely attempted to relitigate the Authority’s conclusions in Arizona Army National Guard and 

raised arguments that the Union could have made, but did not make, in the underlying case. 

Therefore, the Authority denied the motion.

CASE DIGEST: Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, Ky. Long Rifle Chapter 83, 

73 FLRA 812 (2024)

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

collective-bargaining agreement; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); or § 7116(a)(7) of the Federal Service 

Labor-Management Relations Statute1 (the Statute) when it implemented revised regulations and 

promptly separated a technician with a pending disability-retirement claim. The Union filed an 

exception on contrary-to-law grounds. The Authority denied the Union’s contrary-to-law

exception because it did not establish any deficiencies in the award. 

CASE DIGEST: NTEU, 73 FLRA 816

The Union grieved an Agency memorandum directing all employees, including “homebased” employees, to report to their official duty stations once per pay period. The Arbitrator 

denied the grievance, rejecting the Union’s interpretation of telework provisions in the parties’ 

agreement and, alternatively, concluding the Union’s interpretation conflicted with management 

rights under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. 

The Union filed exceptions alleging the award was based on several nonfacts and 

conflicted with Authority precedent concerning repudiation and management rights. Because the 

Union failed to demonstrate that the award was based on nonfacts, the Authority denied these 

exceptions. And because the Union did not prove the Agency violated the agreement, the 

Authority denied its repudiation exception. As the Arbitrator relied on separate and independent 

bases to deny the Union’s grievance, and the Union did not establish that the first basis was 

deficient, the Authority declined to consider the Union’s management-rights exception

challenging the second basis.

Chairman Grundmann concurred.

1 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(7).
CASE DIGEST: USDA, Food & Nutrition Serv., 73 FLRA 822 (2024) 

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency violated the parties’ agreement and 

§ 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) in 

connection with the Agency’s extension of several employees’ details. The Agency filed 

exceptions alleging the award failed to draw its essence from the agreement, was based on a 

nonfact, and was contrary to law, specifically: the Details Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3341; the Office of 

Personnel Management’s Guide to Processing Personnel Actions; and management’s right to 

assign employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. The Authority dismissed the Details Act 

exception and denied the remaining exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of the Army, U.S. Army Garrison, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.,

73 FLRA 827 (2024)

The Agency filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority’s decision in 

U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Garrison, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, 73 FLRA 

700 (2023) (Picatinny). The motion did not demonstrate that the Authority erred, and attempted 

to relitigate the Authority’s conclusions, in Picatinny. Therefore, the Authority found the motion 

did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration and denied it.

CASE DIGEST: SPORT Air Traffic Controllers Org., 73 FLRA 830 (2024)

(Chairman Grundmann concurring)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding a Union grievance was not arbitrable. The Union 

excepted, arguing the award is contrary to law, fails to draw its essence from the parties’ 1994 

collective-bargaining agreement, and is incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory, so as to make 

implementation of the award impossible. The Agency filed an opposition, in which it requested

the Authority grant certain remedies. The Authority denied the Union’s exceptions and the 

Agency’s remedial request.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Complex, Victorville, Cal., 

73 FLRA 835 (2024)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency denied overtime opportunities to a 

correctional officer on a continuous and ongoing basis. The Agency filed exceptions to the 

award on nonfact and exceeded-authority grounds. Because the Agency did not demonstrate that 

the award was deficient on either ground, the Authority denied the exceptions.
CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 480, Council of Prison Locs. #33 and U.S. DOJ, 

Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Inst. McDowell, Welch, W. Va.,

73 FLRA 839 (2024)

The Union grieved an Agency decision to temporarily assign four employees to cover the 

duties of a vacant position without first bargaining over the assignments with the Union. The 

Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding the Agency had no obligation to bargain because the 

assignments were only temporary increases to the employees’ regular duties. The Union filed a 

contrary-to-law exception. Because the Union did not explain this exception, the Authority 

denied it as unsupported under 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1). Chairman Grundmann concurred.