Federal Labor Relations Authority

Quarterly Digest Report: January 1, 2023 – March 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: Fraternal Ord. of Police, DC Lodge 1, 73 FLRA 408 (2023) 

In this case, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the Family and 

Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by preventing the grievant from returning to a paid, full-duty status 

after a period of FMLA leave. The Arbitrator denied the grievance because the Union based its 

allegations on FMLA provisions that do not apply to federal employees. The Arbitrator also 

found that the grievant failed to comply with the Agency’s fitness-for-duty requirements. The 

Union filed exceptions to the award on contrary-to-law, public-policy, nonfact, 

exceeded-authority, and essence grounds. Because the Union failed to demonstrate that the 

award was deficient on any of those grounds, the Authority denied the Union’s exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: NTEU, Chapter 149, 73 FLRA 413 (2023)

The Arbitrator found the Agency properly rescinded an agreement between the parties 

and no provision of that agreement remained in effect thereafter. The Union filed exceptions to 

the award on exceeded-authority, contrary-to-law, nonfact, and essence grounds. The Authority 

dismissed the essence exception, in part, and denied the remaining exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of Interior, Nat’l Park Serv., 73 FLRA 418 (2023)

The Arbitrator found the Agency violated the parties’ agreement when it changed 

employee duty stations without notifying the Union of a related personnel survey, providing the 

Union with the results of the survey, and giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain 

over certain aspects of the changes to duty stations. The Agency filed exceptions on nonfact and 
contrary-to-law grounds. The Authority denied the exceptions because they failed to 

demonstrate how the award was deficient.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 446, 73 FLRA 421 (2023)

The Arbitrator found that the Agency did not violate the parties’ collective-bargaining 

agreement by only considering certain employees for a temporary detail to a supervisory position 

on one of the Agency’s shifts. The Union filed an exception challenging the award on essence 

grounds. The Authority denied the exception.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Complex, Bastrop, Tex., 73 FLRA 423 

(2023)

The Agency filed an interlocutory exception to the Arbitrator’s finding that the Union’s 

grievance was arbitrable. Because resolution of the Agency’s exception would not obviate the 

need for further arbitration, the Authority dismissed the exception for failure to establish 

extraordinary circumstances warranting interlocutory review.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 3197, 73 FLRA 425 (2023)

In a fee award, the Arbitrator denied the Union’s petition for attorney fees. The Union 

did not file exceptions to the fee award, but filed a motion for reconsideration with the 

Arbitrator. The Arbitrator issued an order (reconsideration order) denying the Union’s motion. 

The Union then filed exceptions to the reconsideration order. The Authority found: the order 

did not modify the fee award; the exceptions challenged the fee award; and the deadline for filing 

exceptions to the fee award expired before the Union filed the exceptions. Therefore, the 

Authority dismissed the exceptions as untimely. 

CASE DIGEST: NTEU, 73 FLRA 428 (2023)

The Petitioner proposed amending § 2427.2(a) of the Authority’s Regulations. The 

Regulation allows “any lawful association not qualified as a labor organization” to request a 

policy statement from the Authority. The proposed amendment would restrict this right to only 

lawful associations “of federal employees.” The Authority was not persuaded by the Petitioner’s 

arguments that the amendment would better align the Regulation with the Federal Service 

Labor-Management Relations Statute or promote effective and efficient government. Therefore, 

the Authority denied the petition.

Chairman Grundmann concurred. 
CASE DIGEST: NTEU, 73 FLRA 431 (2023)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency violated law and contract when it 

failed to give the Union appropriate notice of proposed changes, but did not violate law or 

contract when it failed to give the Union an opportunity to bargain in midterm bargaining, 

separate and apart from ongoing negotiations over a new term collective-bargaining agreement. 

The Union filed exceptions alleging the award failed to draw its essence from the parties’ 

agreement and the Arbitrator exceeded her authority. The Authority denied the Union’s

exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. Forest Serv., Collbran Job Corps Civilian Conservation Ctr., 

Collbran, Co., 73 FLRA 436 (2023)

The Regional Director found that § 7111(f)(3) of the Federal Service Labor-Management 

Relations Statute and § 2422.12(d) of the Authority’s Regulations barred the Petitioner’s petition 

for an election to represent a bargaining unit. The Petitioner filed an application for review of 

this decision, arguing that the Regional Director (RD) failed to apply established law and that the 

decision raised issues for which there is an absence of Authority precedent. Because the 

application for review raised arguments that the Petitioner did not raise to the RD, failed to 

demonstrate that the RD had erred in his application of established law, and failed to demonstrate 

a lack of relevant Authority precedent, the Authority partially dismissed and partially denied the 

application.

CASE DIGEST: Dep’t of the Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss., 

73 FLRA 443 (2023)

This case concerned whether the Agency violated § 7116(a)(l) and (2) of the Federal 

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by terminating a probationary 

employee for filing a grievance. FLRA Chief Administrative Law Judge David L. Welch (the 

Judge) found that the Agency did not violate § 7116(a)(1) or (2) of the Statute. The Union filed 

exceptions to the Judge’s decision on the basis that he erred in his credibility determinations and 

findings of fact, and in finding that the GC failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 

The Authority found that a preponderance of the record evidence supported the Judge’s 

credibility determinations and factual findings, and the Judge’s legal analysis is consistent with 

applicable precedent. Therefore, the Authority adopted the Judge’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations; and dismissed the complaint.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 32, 73 FLRA 464 (2023)

This case concerns the negotiability of one proposal related to maintaining the status quo 

of maximum telework schedules until the parties have completed bargaining over employees’ 

return to the worksite. The Authority found that the Agency waived its arguments that the 

proposal was outside the duty to bargain because it failed to timely raise those arguments. 

Therefore, the Authority concluded the proposal was within the duty to bargain.
CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of VA, Robley Rex Med. Ctr., 73 FLRA 468 (2023)

The Arbitrator found the grievants were entitled to environmental-differential pay

because they worked in close proximity to low-hazard microorganisms. The Agency filed 

exceptions. The Authority set aside the award as contrary to law, specifically, 5 C.F.R. Part 532, 

Subpart E, Appendix A. 

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 3184, 73 FLRA 471 (2023)

The Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance and awarded limited attorney fees. The

Union filed exceptions to the fee award on nonfact, contrary-to-law, fair hearing, and impossibleto-implement grounds. The Authority granted the nonfact and contrary-to-law exceptions and 

remanded the matter to the parties for resubmission to the Arbitrator.

CASE DIGEST: U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Inst. Mendota, Cal., 73 FLRA 474 

(2023)

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

agreement, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, and the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) by disapproving an official time request, and thereby causing the grievant 

to work more than his scheduled hours. The Arbitrator awarded remedies under the Back Pay 

Act and the FLSA. The Agency filed exceptions challenging the Arbitrator’s remedy 

determination on contrary-to-law and essence grounds. The Authority dismissed the Agency’s 

essence exception and contrary-to-law exception concerning the FLSA, and denied the remaining 

exceptions.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Loc. 3197, 73 FLRA 477 (2023)

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

Local 3197, 73 FLRA 475 (2023) (Local 3197). Because the Union’s motion was a mere 

attempt to relitigate the Authority’s conclusions in Local 3197, the Authority found the motion 

did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration, and the Authority 

denied it.

CASE DIGEST: NTEU, Chapter 116, 73 FLRA 479 (2023)

The Arbitrator dismissed the Union’s two grievances because they concerned a 

probationary employee’s termination. The Union filed nonfact, contrary-to-law, and essence 

exceptions. The Authority found that the Union failed to establish the award was deficient on 

those grounds, and denied the exceptions. 
CASE DIGEST: IFPTE, Loc. 4, 73 FLRA 484 (2023)

The Arbitrator found that the Union’s grievance was untimely, and thus not procedurally 

arbitrable under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. Because the Union could have, but 

did not raise the arguments on which its exceptions were based to the Arbitrator, the Authority 

found the exceptions barred by 5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.4(c) and 2429.5 and dismissed them. 

CASE DIGEST: NTEU, Chapter 338, 73 FLRA 487 (2023)

Challenging the Agency’s suspension of the grievant, the Union alleged to the Arbitrator 

that the suspension did not promote the efficiency of the service and that it violated the 

Whistleblower Protection Act. Upon finding that the suspension did not promote the efficiency 

of the service, the Arbitrator rescinded it. He then asserted that the Union could pursue its other 

claim in other forums. The Authority found that the Arbitrator’s statement about remedial 

alternatives for the Union’s other claim was dictum and, as such, did not provide a basis for 

setting aside the award. Therefore, the Authority denied the Union’s exception.

CASE DIGEST: AFGE, Nat’l Citizenship & Immigr. Serv., Council 119, 73 FLRA 490 

(2023)

The Union grieved the Agency’s implementation of certain official-time limits set forth 

in an executive order that conflicted with the parties’ existing collective-bargaining agreement. 

The Arbitrator denied the grievance. The Union filed exceptions on the ground that the award 

was contrary to the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute (the Statute) because the Agency 

unlawfully implemented the executive order during the extended term of the parties’ agreement. 

Because § 7116(a)(7) of the Statute does not permit an agency to enforce a rule or regulation 

which is in conflict with a collective-bargaining agreement if the agreement was in effect before 

the date the rule or regulation was prescribed, the Authority found that the award was contrary to 

law. 

CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of VA, VA Roseburg Healthcare Sys./White City-SORCC, 73 

FLRA 493 (2023)

The Arbitrator found the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by requiring some 

employees to use personal leave under certain circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Agency filed contrary-to-law exceptions. The Authority found the record did not indicate 

that the Agency raised its arguments at arbitration, even though it could have done so. Thus, the 

Authority dismissed the exceptions under §§ 2425.4(c) and 2429.5 of the Authority’s 

Regulations.