---

 3 FLRA No. 100
 
                                            Case No. 0-PS-13
 
                 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR GENERAL STATEMENT
                           OF POLICY OR GUIDANCE
 
    THE AUTHORITY RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE A MAJOR POLICY DETERMINATION ON THE
 FOLLOWING QUESTION:
 
    HOW WILL THE PARTIES TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ACHIEVE
 ENFORCEMENT OF A BINDING
 
    ARBITRATION AWARD UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT, PUB. L.
 95-454, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 7121(B)(3)(C)?  SPECIFICALLY, WILL (MUST) THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ENTERTAIN PETITIONS FOR SUCH
 ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO THE BROAD GRANT OF POWERS TO THE AUTHORITY
 UNDER
 5 U.S.C. SECTION 7105(A)(1), (2) AND ISSUE A FINAL ORDER BASED UPON SUCH
 PETITION WHICH IS ENFORCEABLE IN FEDERAL COURT UNDER 5 U.S.C. SECTION
 7123(B)?
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THIS REQUEST AND HAS
 DETERMINED THAT IT DOES NOT SATISFY THE STANDARDS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE
 OF GENERAL STATEMENTS OF POLICY AND GUIDANCE SET FORTH IN SECTION 2427.5
 OF THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 45 FED.REG.
 3516(1980), WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    SECTION 2427.5 STANDARDS GOVERNING ISSUANCE OF GENERAL STATEMENTS OF
 POLICY AND GUIDANCE.
 
    IN DECIDING WHETHER TO ISSUE A GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY OR
 GUIDANCE, THE AUTHORITY SHALL
 
    CONSIDER:
 
    (A) WHETHER THE QUESTION PRESENTED CAN MORE APPROPRIATELY BE RESOLVED
 BY OTHER MEANS(.)
 
    THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS REQUEST FOR A MAJOR POLICY
 DETERMINATION CAN BE MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED BY OTHER MEANS.  IN
 THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL MATTER
 IN HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND, ET AL., FORT HUACHUCA
 ARIZONA AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1662,
 CASE NO. O-MC-, 2 FLRA NO. 101 (MAR. 7, 1980) AND CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (T)HE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE
 RELIED UPON BY THE UNION
 
    FAILS TO SUPPORT THE UNION'S ASSERTION THAT AN ARBITRATION AWARD TO
 WHICH NO EXCEPTION HAS
 
    BEEN FILED BECOMES AN "ORDER" OF THE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 5 U.S.C. 7123(B).  ON THE
 
    CONTRARY, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 7123 OF THE STATUTE
 SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT
 
    AN ARBITRATION AWARD TO WHICH NO EXCEPTION HAS BEEN FILED DOES NOT
 CONSTITUTE AN "ORDER OF THE
 
    AUTHORITY" UNDER SECTION 7123(B) UPON WHICH ENFORCEMENT ACTION MAY BE
 PREDICATED BEFORE A
 
    UNITED STATES COURT FOR APPEALS.
 
    THE AUTHORITY FURTHER NOTES THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE
 PARTIES ARE PRIMARILY
 
    DISPUTING WHETHER THE ACTIVITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S
 AWARD.  THERE ARE READY
 
    MEANS AVAILABLE UNDER THE STATUTE FOR RESOLVING THIS TYPE OF DISPUTE.
  IF A QUESTION OF
 
    CLARIFICATION OR INTERPRETATION OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD ARISES IN
 CONNECTION WITH COMPLIANCE
 
    THEREWITH, THE PARTIES MAY JOINTLY REQUEST A CLARIFICATION OR
 INTERPRETATION OF THE AWARD FROM
 
    THE ARBITRATOR OR THE PARTIES MAY JOINTLY SUBMIT THE QUESTION OF
 COMPLIANCE TO ARBITRATION FOR
 
    RESOLUTION.  IN ADDITION, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEDURES UNDER
 
    SECTION 7116 OF THE STATUTE MAY BE USED WHEN THERE IS A DISPUTE
 CONCERNING AN ALLEGED FAILURE
 
    OF A PARTY TO ABIDE BY A FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION AWARD.
 INDEED, THE FOREGOING
 
    PROCEEDINGS ARE PARTICULARLY EQUIPPED TO RESOLVE COMPLIANCE DISPUTES
 SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED
 
    SINCE THOSE DISPUTES FREQUENTLY REQUIRE CREDIBILITY AND OTHER FACTUAL
 DETERMINATIONS DEPENDENT
 
    UPON THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY IN SUCH HEARINGS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE REQUEST FOR A MAJOR POLICY DETERMINATION IS DENIED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 10, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 

---