B-217172, JUN 12, 1985
Highlights
THIS MATTER IS MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED UNDER THE PROCEDURES AUTHORIZED BY 5 U.S.C. IT APPEARS THAT THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE UNION AND THE AGENCY HAVE DISAGREED AS TO THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERTIME BACKPAY. THE MATTER IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DECISION BY THIS OFFICE. THE MATTER IS MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THROUGH THE PROCEDURES AUTHORIZED BY 5 U.S.C. WE DECLINE TO ASSERT JURISDICTION AT THIS TIME. /1/ THE MATTER WAS SUBMITTED BY WALTER G.
B-217172, JUN 12, 1985
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE - JURISDICTION - LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS - REQUESTS FOR DECISIONS - DECLINED DIGEST: A CERTIFYING OFFICER REQUESTS A DECISION ON THE COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME BACKPAY AWARDED BY AN ARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION UNDER 4 C.F.R. SEC. 22.5 OR A JOINT REQUEST FROM BOTH PARTIES, THIS MATTER IS MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED UNDER THE PROCEDURES AUTHORIZED BY 5 U.S.C. CHAPTER 71. THUS, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECLINES JURISDICTION.
ROBERT D. HEALY:
A CERTIFYING OFFICER WITH THE U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE HAS REQUESTED A DECISION ON THE COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME BACKPAY AWARDED TO MR. ROBERT D. HEALY BY AN ARBITRATOR. /1/ FROM THE INFORMATION IN THE SUBMISSION, IT APPEARS THAT THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, AND THE UNION AND THE AGENCY HAVE DISAGREED AS TO THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERTIME BACKPAY.
SINCE THIS MATTER CONCERNS A DISPUTE OVER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION PURSUANT TO 4 C.F.R. SEC. 22.5, OR A JOINT REQUEST FROM THE PARTIES BASED UPON A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE MATTER IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DECISION BY THIS OFFICE. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 22.7; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2459, 62 COMP.GEN. 274 (1983); AND PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD, B-212632, OCTOBER 4, 1983. IF THE PARTIES CANNOT REACH AN AGREEMENT, THE MATTER IS MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED THROUGH THE PROCEDURES AUTHORIZED BY 5 U.S.C. CHAPTER 71. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 22.8; HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND, ET AL., FORT HAUCHUCA, ARIZONA, 2 FLRA 785, 789 (1980); AND U.S. ARMY HEALTH CLINIC, FORT RICHIE, MARYLAND AND NFFE LOCAL 1153, 9 FLRA 935 (1982).
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION FROM AN ARBITRATOR OR OTHER NEUTRAL PURSUANT TO 4 C.F.R. SEC. 22.5, OR A JOINT REQUEST FROM THE PARTIES FOR A DECISION BASED UPON A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON STATEMENT OF FACTS PURSUANT TO 4 C.F.R. SEC. 22.7(B), WE DECLINE TO ASSERT JURISDICTION AT THIS TIME.
/1/ THE MATTER WAS SUBMITTED BY WALTER G. LOBISSER, CHIEF, ACCOUNTING BRANCH, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.