Opinion ID: 672300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Interest Arbitrator's Jurisdiction

Text: 19 Fortunately, the confusion engendered by the Authority's handling of this case is largely dissipated by our conclusion that the interest arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award the proposals over which PTO claims it has no duty to bargain. This group of proposals consists of numbers 20, 23, 24, 26, and 42. Because these proposals were awarded in the absence of jurisdiction we hold that they are not part of Article 19, regardless of their negotiability which we address below. 20 The interest arbitrator in this case was engaged at the direction of the Panel, and his authority is coterminous with that of the Panel. See Department of Defense Dependents Sch. v. FLRA, 852 F.2d 779, 784 (4th Cir.1988) (The idea that a 'designee' of the Impasses Panel should have any other or different or even greater authority than that of the panel is ... without authorization.). The Panel--and by delegation, the arbitrator--enjoys the latitude to take whatever action is necessary and not inconsistent with [the Statute] to resolve the impasse, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7119(c)(5)(B)(iii), including the power unilaterally to impose contract terms on the parties. The Authority believed that the arbitrator's broad remedial authority empowered him to reach all the disputed proposals. 21 What the Authority totally overlooked was that before the Panel can employ its power, there must first be an impasse. The Statute allows the Panel, and by designation the arbitrator, to provide assistance in resolving negotiation impasses between agencies and exclusive representatives. Id. Sec. 7119(c)(1) (1988). The Statute does not define a negotiation impasse, but the Authority's regulations define the term to mean 22 that point ... at which the parties are unable to reach agreement, notwithstanding their efforts to do so by direct negotiations and by the use of mediation or other voluntary arrangements for settlement. 23 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2470.2(e) (1994) (emphasis added). Clearly, the Panel's jurisdiction is premised on the parties being unable to reach agreement, notwithstanding their efforts to do so. Indeed, the Panel is obligated to [d]ecline to assert jurisdiction in the event that it finds that no impasse exists. Id. Sec. 2471.6(a)(1). 24 It is indisputable that the parties never bargained over several of the new proposals included in the revised package that the Union submitted to the interest arbitrator. Of these, proposals 20, 23, 24, 26, and 42 became part of Article 19. The Agency had refused to negotiate over these proposals with the Union, asserting duty-to-bargain and negotiability objections. In fact, the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Agency (which the Authority dismissed as untimely) precisely because PTO had refused to bargain. Clearly, when the interest arbitrator turned his attention to these particular proposals, the parties had never negotiated over them, let alone reached an impasse, and thus the arbitrator had no authority to award these proposals as part of the contract. 2 Therefore, as to proposals 20, 23, 24, 26, and 42, the Authority committed reversible error in ruling that the interest arbitrator had jurisdiction to consider these proposals and in holding that any of the proposals found to be negotiable were part of Article 19 of the parties' agreement. 25