---

38 FLRA NO. 45

                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                      TOOELE ARMY DEPOT
                        TOOELE, UTAH
                           (Agency)

                              and

           INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
                              AND
                      AEROSPACE WORKERS
                  TOOELE FEDERAL LODGE 2261
                           (Union)

                          0-AR-2008

                    ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

                         November 27, 1990

     The grievant, Mr. Duane L. Madill, filed exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator John R. Taylor in the above-captioned case.
On October 26, 1990, the Authority directed Mr. Madill to show
cause why his exceptions should not be dismissed for lack of
standing as a party to file exceptions. Mr. Madill filed a timely
response to the Authority's Order. For the reasons set out below,
Mr. Madill's exceptions must be dismissed.

     The Authority's Regulations provide that "(e)ither party
(emphasis added)" to an arbitration proceeding "may file an
exception to an arbitrator's award rendered pursuant to the
arbitration." 5 C.F.R. 2425.1(a). A "party" in the context of an
arbitration proceeding is defined as "any person ... who
participated as a party ... in a matter where the award of an
arbitrator was issued...." 5 C.F.R. 2421.11(a)(4) (ii).

     The Arbitrator's award indicates that the parties to the
arbitration proceeding were the Agency, represented by James R.
Tanner, and the Union, represented by Dale R. Loveless. 

     In the Authority's Order to Show Cause, Mr. Madill was
directed to provide evidence that he participated as a "party" in
the proceeding or that he was authorized by the Union to file the
exceptions in the above-captioned case. In his response to the
Authority's Order, Mr. Madill enclosed a letter from the Union
(Dale R. Loveless) dated November 7, 1990, addressed "to whom it
may concern." The letter states that the Union represented Mr.
Madill through the grievance process and the arbitration. The
letter also states that the "Union does not feel further appeal
is merited" but that the Union has "no objection to Mr. Madill
proceeding with his exceptions." There is nothing in the letter
that clearly shows that Mr. Madill either participated as a
"party" in the proceeding before the Arbitrator, or was
authorized by the Union to file the exceptions presently before
the Authority.

     Accordingly, Mr. Madill's exceptions are dismissed for lack
of standing as a party to file exceptions in the above-captioned
case.

For the Authority.

                         Alicia N. Columna
                         Director, Case Control Office

---