Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
PBGC Approves SFA Application for UFCW Local 360 Labor-Management Plan
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. issued the following news release on Nov. 19, 2024:* * *
UFCW Local 360 Labor-Management Plan Preserves Benefits Through Receipt of Special Financial Assistance
* * *
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) announced today that it has approved the application submitted to the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) Program by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 360 Labor-Management Pension Plan (UFCW Local 360 Labor-Management Plan). The plan, based in Pine Brook, New Jersey, covers 6,117 participants ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 -- The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. issued the following news release on Nov. 19, 2024: * * * UFCW Local 360 Labor-Management Plan Preserves Benefits Through Receipt of Special Financial Assistance * * * The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) announced today that it has approved the application submitted to the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) Program by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 360 Labor-Management Pension Plan (UFCW Local 360 Labor-Management Plan). The plan, based in Pine Brook, New Jersey, covers 6,117 participantsin the service industry.
The UFCW Local 360 Labor-Management Plan, which is in critical status, will receive approximately $30.4 million in SFA, including interest to the expected date of payment to the plan. SFA will enable the plan to continue to pay retirement benefits without reduction for many years into the future.
The SFA Program was enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act - signed by President Biden on March 11, 2021.
"Many Americans have worked for decades toward the promise of a well-earned retirement after a lifetime of hard work," said Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su. "Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is delivering on that promise for workers of UFCW Local 360 by providing Special Financial Assistance under the American Rescue Plan to ensure that they can retire with the dignity they deserve."
About the Special Financial Assistance Program
The SFA Program provides funding to severely underfunded multiemployer pension plans and will ensure that millions of America's workers, retirees, and their families receive the pension benefits they earned.
The SFA Program requires plans to demonstrate eligibility for SFA and to calculate the amount of assistance pursuant to ARP and PBGC's regulations. SFA and earnings thereon must be segregated from other plan assets and may be used only to pay plan benefits and administrative expenses. Plans receiving SFA are also subject to certain terms, conditions and reporting requirements, including an annual statement documenting compliance with the terms and conditions. PBGC is authorized to conduct periodic audits of multiemployer plans that receive SFA.
As of November 19, 2024, PBGC has announced approval of about $69.5 billion in SFA to plans that cover about 1,221,000 workers, retirees, and beneficiaries.
The SFA Program operates under a final rule, published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2022, which became effective August 8, 2022, and was amended effective January 26, 2023.
* * *
About PBGC
PBGC protects the retirement security of about 31 million American workers, retirees, and beneficiaries in both single-employer and multiemployer private sector pension plans. The agency's two insurance programs are legally separate and operationally and financially independent. PBGC is directly responsible for the benefits of nearly 1.4 million participants and beneficiaries in failed single-employer pension plans. The Single-Employer Program is financed by insurance premiums, investment income, and assets and recoveries from failed single-employer plans. The Multiemployer Program is financed by insurance premiums and investment income. Special financial assistance for financially troubled multiemployer plans is financed by general taxpayer monies.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pbgc.gov/news/press/releases/pr24-041
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Releases FY 2024 Annual Report
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 (TNSres) -- The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. issued the following news release on Nov. 18, 2024:* * *
Financial Positions Continue to Grow Stronger in PBGC Insurance Programs
* * *
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) today released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Annual Report. The report shows PBGC's insurance programs are financially sound and continue to grow stronger. This marks the fourth consecutive year of positive net financial positions for both our Single-Employer and Multiemployer insurance programs.
Additionally, this report notes the 32nd consecutive ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 (TNSres) -- The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. issued the following news release on Nov. 18, 2024: * * * Financial Positions Continue to Grow Stronger in PBGC Insurance Programs * * * The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) today released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Annual Report. The report shows PBGC's insurance programs are financially sound and continue to grow stronger. This marks the fourth consecutive year of positive net financial positions for both our Single-Employer and Multiemployer insurance programs. Additionally, this report notes the 32nd consecutiveyear PBGC has received an unmodified audit opinion on its financial statements and the ninth consecutive year of an unmodified audit opinion on internal control over financial reporting.
PBGC's Multiemployer Program had a positive net position of $2.1 billion at the end of FY 2024, compared with $1.5 billion at the end of FY 2023, an improvement of nearly $680 million. PBGC's Single-Employer Program net position grew to $54 billion at the end of FY 2024, up from $45 billion at the end of FY 2023. These results are broadly consistent with PBGC's recent Projections Reports.
"As PBGC marks its 50th anniversary, our mission is as vital as it was in 1974 with the enactment of ERISA, which also founded PBGC," said PBGC's Acting Director Ann Y. Orr. "This report shows that PBGC's insurance programs continue to strengthen, providing peace of mind for workers and retirees who rely on us. We are proud of our mission and remain fully committed to serving our customers now and into the future."
Multiemployer Program Continues to Improve
The Multiemployer Program had assets of $4.5 billion and liabilities of $2.3 billion, as of September 30, 2024. The net financial position of the Multiemployer Program improved in FY 2024, to a positive net position of $2.1 billion, compared with the program's positive net position of $1.5 billion the previous year. The improvement is due primarily to investment income, premium income and a reduction in expected future financial assistance payments.
Estimates from PBGC's FY 2023 Projections Report show the Multiemployer Program is likely to remain solvent for more than 40 years, primarily due to the enactment of the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) Program as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. As of November 1, 2024, PBGC has approved about $69.5 billion in SFA to financially troubled multiemployer plans that cover about 1.2 million workers and retirees.
During FY 2024, PBGC also provided $163 million in traditional financial assistance to 98 insolvent multiemployer plans covering 62,881 participants receiving guaranteed benefits.
The Multiemployer Program covers approximately 11 million participants in about 1,335 insured plans.
Single-Employer Program Net Position Continues to Grow
The Single-Employer Program had $146 billion in assets and $92 billion in liabilities, as of September 30, 2024, resulting in a positive net position of $54 billion at the end of FY 2024, up from $45 billion from last year. The improvement is primarily the result of strong investment income and premium income in excess of new claims. During FY 2024, PBGC paid $5.8 billion in retirement benefits to over 912,000 retirees in PBGC-trusteed plans.
The Single-Employer Program protects about 19.4 million workers and retirees in about 23,000 insured pension plans.
* * *
About PBGC's FY 2024 Financial Report
PBGC's financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. For FY 2024, PBGC received an unmodified audit opinion on its financial statements, as well as an unmodified audit opinion on internal control over financial reporting. Ernst & Young LLP performed the audit under contract with PBGC's Office of Inspector General, which oversaw the audit. Separately, PBGC publishes a Projections Report each year that illustrates the possible future financial condition of the agency's two insurance programs.
About PBGC
PBGC protects the retirement security of about 31 million American workers, retirees, and beneficiaries in both single-employer and multiemployer private sector pension plans. The agency's two insurance programs are legally separate and operationally and financially independent. PBGC is directly responsible for the benefits of nearly 1.4 million participants and beneficiaries in failed single-employer pension plans. The Single-Employer Program is financed by insurance premiums, investment income, and assets and recoveries from failed single-employer plans. The Multiemployer Program is financed by insurance premiums and investment income. Special financial assistance for financially troubled multiemployer plans is financed by general taxpayer monies.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pbgc-annual-report-2024.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pbgc.gov/news/press/releases/pr24-040
Litigation: SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Defendant for Receiving Kickbacks in Bribery Scheme
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:19-cv-5631; E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 4, 2019) involving Auerbach, et al.:* * *
On November 15, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment against defendant Richard Brown for accepting kickbacks in an alleged scheme to defraud investors.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the Eastern District of New York on October 4, 2019, alleged that from approximately July 2014 through October 2015, Brown, then a registered stockbroker, accepted cash bribes from the CEO of Nxt-ID, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:19-cv-5631; E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 4, 2019) involving Auerbach, et al.: * * * On November 15, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment against defendant Richard Brown for accepting kickbacks in an alleged scheme to defraud investors. The SEC's complaint, filed in the Eastern District of New York on October 4, 2019, alleged that from approximately July 2014 through October 2015, Brown, then a registered stockbroker, accepted cash bribes from the CEO of Nxt-ID,Inc. and another defendant to purchase more than $750,000 worth of Nxt-ID, Inc. common stock in his customers' accounts. Brown allegedly made the purchases without informing his customers that he was receiving kickbacks in connection with the purchases.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Brown consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, permanently barring him from participating in an offering of penny stock, and ordering disgorgement of $10,000 in ill-gotten gains and prejudgment interest thereon.
The litigation was led by Mary Kay Dunning and Lindsay S. Moilanen and supervised by Tejal D. Shah and Preethi Krishnamurthy.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Richard Brown (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2024/judg26170.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26170
FLRA Issues Decision Regarding AFGE, Local 2338 Vs. VA, John J. Pershing VA Medical Center
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Federal Labor Relations Authority issued the following decision (Case No. 0-AR-5977) on Nov. 18, 2024:* * *
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2338 (Union)
and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
JOHN J. PERSHING VA MEDICAL CENTER
POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI (Agency)
0 AR 5977
DECISION
November 18, 2024
* * *
Before the Authority: Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman, and Colleen Duffy Kiko and Anne Wagner, Members
I. Statement of the Case
Arbitrator Jack P. Cerone issued an award finding a Union grievance was not arbitrable. The Union filed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Federal Labor Relations Authority issued the following decision (Case No. 0-AR-5977) on Nov. 18, 2024: * * * AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2338 (Union) and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS JOHN J. PERSHING VA MEDICAL CENTER POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI (Agency) 0 AR 5977 DECISION November 18, 2024 * * * Before the Authority: Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman, and Colleen Duffy Kiko and Anne Wagner, Members I. Statement of the Case Arbitrator Jack P. Cerone issued an award finding a Union grievance was not arbitrable. The Union filedexceptions to the award on essence and exceeded authority grounds. Because the Union does not demonstrate the award is deficient, we deny the exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The Union filed a Step 3 grievance alleging the Agency wrongfully failed or refused to process employees' dues deductions. The Agency responded by providing potential dates and times for a grievance meeting. The Union did not respond, the parties did not schedule or conduct a grievance meeting, and the Agency did not provide the Union with a written response to the grievance. The Union invoked arbitration.
At arbitration, the Agency filed a motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the Union failed to participate in a Step 3 grievance meeting as the parties' collective bargaining agreement requires. In response, the Union alleged the Agency's argument was untimely because the parties' agreement requires parties to raise procedural-arbitrability claims no later than the Step 3 grievance decision, and the Agency failed to do so. On the first day of the arbitration hearing, the Arbitrator stated that he was "going to withhold [his] ruling on [the Agency's] motion" and was "not going to rule for [the Agency] or against [the Agency] at th[at] point."[1] However, on the third day of the hearing, the Arbitrator stated that the Agency's "motion was denied,"[2] and that he had "sustained" the Union's objection to the motion.[3]
The parties did not stipulate any issues, and the Arbitrator framed them, in relevant part, as whether the grievance was deficient "for a lack of [p]rocedural [a]rbitrability" and "because it failed to follow procedures as laid out and mandated in . . . Article 43, [Section 7(B),] Step 3 and Article 44, Section[s] 1 and 2" of the parties' agreement.[4]
Article 43, Section 7(B), Step 3 of the parties' agreement pertinently provides that the Agency: (1) "shall meet with the aggrieved employee(s) and their Union representative(s) within seven calendar days from receipt of the Step 3 grievance to discuss the grievance," and (2) "will render a written decision letter" on the grievance "within [ten] calendar days after the meeting."[5] At arbitration, the Agency claimed it attempted to schedule a meeting with the Union three times, but the Union argued it did not receive the Agency's emails requesting to meet. The Union claimed it did not receive the emails because they were sent to the Union president's government email address rather than his personal email address, which he used to file the grievance.
The Arbitrator found that "both the Union and the Agency failed to follow" the agreement's procedures because the Union did not meet to discuss the grievance and the Agency did not file a written response to the grievance.[6] However, the Arbitrator determined the "onus" was on the Union to meet with the Agency so that the Agency could "correct or deny" the grievance.[7] In response to the Union's claim that it did not receive the Agency's emails, the Arbitrator found the Union president's "testimony regarding the emails and his inability to communicate [was] proven false."[8] Additionally, the Arbitrator found it was the Union's duty to check its government email. In this connection, the Arbitrator found that Article 51 of the parties' agreement "establishes an expectation that Union officials will use government equipment."[9] Moreover, the Arbitrator found that, "[i]f the Union did not hear from the Agency in the . . . time [allotted in Article 43, Section 7(B), Step 3], it is their grievance and their obligation to pursue a meeting."[10] The Arbitrator stated that the "Union cannot just rush off to [a]rbitration," and that "the Union skipped a very important step in the well[ ]laid[-]out procedure," specifically, "to meet and discuss the issues in Step 3 before going off on their own."[11]
The Arbitrator concluded that he could not assume jurisdiction over the merits of a grievance because the Union - as the party invoking arbitration - failed to comply with the agreement's procedural requirements. Thus, the Arbitrator found the grievance was not arbitrable.
On July 5, 2024, the Union filed exceptions to the award. The Agency filed an opposition to the exceptions on August 6, 2024.
III. Preliminary Matter: We assume, without deciding, that the Agency's opposition is properly before us.
As noted above, the Agency filed its opposition on August 6, 2024. The deadline to file an opposition is thirty days after the date exceptions are served on the opposing party.[12] Because the Agency's opposition was due on August 5, 2024, the Authority's Office of Case Intake and Publication ordered the Agency to show cause why its opposition should not be dismissed as untimely.[13] The Agency filed a response to the order, conceding that it filed its opposition one day late, but claiming that was due to technical difficulties with the Authority's eFiling system.[14] Because consideration of the Agency's opposition would not alter our ultimate decision in this case, we assume, without deciding, that the opposition is properly before us.[15]
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
A. The Union does not demonstrate the award fails to draw its essence from the parties' agreement.
The Union argues the award fails to draw its essence from various sections of Article 43 of the parties' agreement.[16] The Authority will find an award is deficient as failing to draw its essence from a collective-bargaining agreement when the appealing party establishes the award: (1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected with the wording and purposes of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; (3) does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or (4) evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement.[17]
First, the Union contends the agreement requires the Agency to raise arbitrability issues no later than the Agency's Step 3 grievance decision.[18] As the Agency did not provide a written response to the grievance, the Union argues the Arbitrator improperly allowed the Agency to raise arbitrability issues in its motion to dismiss.[19] For support, the Union cites Article 43, Section 1 (Section 1) and Article 43, Section 4 (Section 4) of the parties' agreement.[20]
Section 1 provides, in pertinent part: "The purpose of . . . [A]rticle [43] is to provide a mutually acceptable method for prompt and equitable settlement of grievances."[21] Section 4 provides, in pertinent part: "The [Agency] must assert any claim of non-grievability or non-arbitrability no later than the Step 3 decision."[22] As discussed above, the Arbitrator found the Agency attempted to schedule a grievance meeting and it was the Union's obligation to follow up with the Agency. Sections 1 and 4 do not address what happens when the Agency's failure to provide a written response to, or render a decision on, a Step 3 grievance is due to the Union failing to follow up on the Agency's attempts to schedule a grievance meeting. As such, the Union's contentions provide no basis for finding the Arbitrator's decision to address the arbitrability issue is irrational, unfounded, implausible, or in manifest disregard of Sections 1 and 4.[23]
Second, the Union argues Article 43, Section 7 (Section 7) of the parties' agreement puts the burden on the Agency, not the Union, to meet to discuss the grievance, and the Arbitrator erred by shifting that burden to the Union.[24] In this regard, the Union asserts that Section 7, Note 5 of the agreement mandates that the Section 7(B), Step 1 (Step 1) time limits apply when the Union elevates a grievance, and those time limits require the Agency to meet and provide a written response within fourteen calendar days of receipt of the grievance.[25] According to the Union, the Agency neither met nor provided a written response to the grievance, and the Agency is required to provide a written response even when no meeting occurs.[26] The Union claims that, if the parties wanted to make it a mutual obligation for the parties to hold a meeting, then they would have stated that in the agreement, as they have established mutual obligations in other places, such as Article 43, Section 10.[27] The Union further asserts that, when the Agency fails to meet its obligations under the agreement, Article 43, Section 9 (Section 9) allows the Union to advance the grievance to the next step.[28] Finally, the Union claims the Arbitrator's interpretation of Article 43 "delay[s] the processing of grievances . . . contrary to . . . Section 1[,] which requires 'prompt and equitable settlement of grievances.'"[29]
As discussed previously, Section 7(B), Step 3 pertinently provides that the Agency "shall meet" with the Union "within seven calendar days from receipt of the Step 3 grievance to discuss the grievance," and "will render a written decision letter" on the grievance "within [ten] calendar days after the meeting."[30] Section 7, Note 5 pertinently provides that "the time limits of Step 1 will apply" when a grievance is initiated at a higher step of the grievance procedure.[31] In turn, Step 1 states, in relevant part, "The immediate or acting supervisor will make every effort to resolve the grievance immediately but must meet with the employee/representative and provide a written answer within [fourteen] calendar days of receipt of the grievance."[32] Under Section 9, "[s]hould the [Agency] fail to comply with the time limits at any step in Section 7 . . . , the grievance may be advanced to the next step."[33]
The Arbitrator found the Agency attempted to schedule a grievance meeting, but the Union did not respond. The Arbitrator also found that, as the party filing the grievance, the Union had the obligation to pursue a meeting with the Agency if the Union did not hear from the Agency within the contractual time frame. Nothing in the above quoted provisions of Article 43 conflicts with the Arbitrator's findings or addresses what happens when the Union fails to respond to Agency attempts to schedule a grievance meeting. Further, nothing in the quoted provisions requires the Agency to provide a written response when a grievance meeting does not occur. Thus, the Union's arguments provide no basis for finding the award is irrational, unfounded, implausible, or in manifest disregard of the parties' agreement.[34]
We deny the essence exceptions.
B. The Arbitrator did not exceed his authority.
The Union claims the Arbitrator exceeded his authority in certain respects.[35] Arbitrators exceed their authority when they fail to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, resolve an issue not submitted to arbitration, disregard specific limitations on their authority, or award relief to persons who are not encompassed by the grievance.[36]
First, the Union argues the Arbitrator exceeded his authority because, in the award, he ruled on the Agency's motion to dismiss after already denying that motion during the arbitration hearing.[37] According to the Union, this action violated "the common[-]law principle of functus officio," which "precludes arbitrators from reconsidering their decision[s]."[38] The Union claims that when the Arbitrator denied the motion to dismiss during the hearing, the parties understood that to be a final ruling to which the Agency could have filed - but did not file - interlocutory exceptions.[39] Relatedly, the Union asserts that: (1) the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (the Statute) should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient government;[40] (2) "[t]o help achieve this goal, Congress required that all collective[-]bargaining agreements include procedures for the settlement of grievances";[41] (3) those procedures must be "fair and simple," provide for "expeditious processing," and be subject to binding arbitration;[42] and (4) if a party fails to timely file exceptions to an arbitration award, then the parties must take the actions required by the award.[43]
Under the functus-officio doctrine, once an arbitrator resolves matters submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator is generally without further authority unless they retain jurisdiction or receive permission from the parties.[44] The functus-officio doctrine prevents arbitrators from reconsidering a final award.[45] However, the Authority has held this doctrine does not apply until the arbitrator's award is completed, delivered to, and received by the parties.[46] In this regard, the Authority has stated that "an oral bench decision can constitute a valid award," but if it is not "reduced to writing and served on the parties," it is not "subject to the filing of exceptions" and is not "a final and binding award."[47]
As stated previously, on the first day of the arbitration hearing, the Arbitrator stated that he was "going to withhold [his] ruling on [the Agency's] motion" and was "not going to rule for [the Agency] or against [the Agency] at this point."[48] On the third day of the hearing, the Arbitrator stated that the Agency's "motion was denied,"[49] and told the Union that he had "sustained" the Union's objection to the motion.[50] However, there is no indication that the Arbitrator intended these statements to constitute a final award, and he did not reduce the statements to writing or serve them on the parties. Thus, there was no basis for the Agency to file exceptions to the statements, and the functus officio doctrine does not apply to them.[51] As for the Union's citations to various provisions of, and policies underlying, the Statute, the Union does not explain how those provisions and policies demonstrate that the Arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, resolved an issue not submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who are not encompassed by the grievance. As such, those citations provide no basis for finding the Arbitrator exceeded his authority.[52]
Second, the Union argues the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by addressing Article 51 of the parties' agreement because neither the grievance nor the Arbitrator's formulation of the issues cited that article.[53] As noted above, arbitrators exceed their authority when they resolve an issue not submitted to arbitration.[54] However, when parties do not stipulate to the issues, arbitrators have the discretion to frame them, and the Authority accords the arbitrator's formulation substantial deference.[55] The Authority has held that arbitrators do not exceed their authority where the award is directly responsive to the formulated issues.[56] Further, arbitrators do not exceed their authority by addressing any issue that is necessary to decide a framed issue.[57]
The parties did not stipulate an issue, and the Arbitrator framed the relevant issues as whether the grievance was deficient "for a lack of [p]rocedural [a]rbitrability" and "because it failed to follow procedures" in the parties' agreement.[58] In resolving those issues, the Arbitrator found the Union did not respond to the Agency's attempts to schedule a grievance meeting.[59] The Union explained its lack of response by arguing that it did not receive the Agency's emails because they were sent to the Union president's government email rather than his personal email. Accordingly, resolving whether the Union "failed to follow procedures" in the parties' agreement required the Arbitrator to resolve whether, under the parties' agreement, the Union's non responsiveness should be excused because the Agency sent its invitations to schedule the grievance meeting to the Union president's government email.[60] As such, the Arbitrator's finding that Article 51 "establishes an expectation that Union officials will use government equipment" was responsive to the issues the Arbitrator framed.[61] Thus, the Arbitrator did not exceed his authority in this regard.[62]
We deny the exceeded-authority exceptions.
V. Decision
We deny the Union's exceptions.
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] Exceptions, Attach. 6, July 20, 2023 Hr'g Tr. (July 20, 2023 Hr'g Tr.) at 15.
[2] Exceptions, Attach. 7, Oct. 4, 2023 Hr'g Tr. (Oct. 4, 2023 Hr'g Tr.) at 75.
[3] Id. at 77.
[4] Award at 3. Article 44, Section 1 states, in pertinent part: "A notice to invoke arbitration shall be made in writing to the opposite party within [thirty] calendar days after receipt of the written decision rendered in the final step of the grievance procedure." Exceptions, Attach. 3, Collective-Bargaining Agreement (CBA) at 234. Article 44, Section 2 sets forth the "Arbitration Procedure." Id.
[5] CBA at 231.
[6] Award at 13.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 14.
[9] Id. Article 51, Section 4 of the parties' agreement pertinently provides that the Agency will furnish each Union office with certain equipment and technology, including email access, and that "[i]t is expected that the Union will utilize such equipment and technology to communicate with and receive notices from the [Agency] as provided elsewhere in th[e a]greement." CBA at 256.
[10] Award at 14.
[11] Id.
[12] 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2425.3(b).
[13] Order to Show Cause at 2.
[14] Agency's Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 1.
[15] AFGE, Loc. 2814, 72 FLRA 777, 778 n.7 (2022) (Chairman DuBester concurring; Member Abbott concurring) (assuming, without deciding, that opposition was properly before the Authority where considering it would not alter the ultimate decision in the case).
[16] Exceptions at 6.
[17] U.S. Dep't of VA, John J. Pershing Veterans' Admin. Ctr., Poplar Bluff, Mo., 73 FLRA 842, 842-43 (2024).
[18] Exceptions at 6, 8-9.
[19] Id.
[20] Id. at 6 ("allowing the Agency to raise . . . [arbitrability] issues when it was clear they did not provide a written [grievance] response is flat out contrary to the plain wording of . . . Section 4; and . . . Section 1"); see also id. at 8-9.
[21] CBA at 228.
[22] Id. at 229.
[23] U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Inst., Elkton, Ohio, 74 FLRA 29, 31 (2024) (DOJ) (denying essence exception where excepting party did not cite any contractual wording that conflicted with arbitrator's findings or otherwise demonstrate those findings were irrational, unfounded, implausible, or in manifest disregard of parties' agreement).
[24] Exceptions at 6, 8.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at 8.
[27] Id. Article 43, Section 10 states, in pertinent part: "Grievances may be combined and decided as a single grievance at the later steps of the grievance procedure by mutual consent." CBA at 233.
[28] Exceptions at 9.
[29] Id. Section 1 states, in pertinent part: "The purpose of this article is to provide a mutually acceptable method for prompt and equitable settlement of grievances." CBA at 228.
[30] CBA at 231.
[31] Id. at 232.
[32] Id. at 230.
[33] Id. at 233.
[34] DOJ, 74 FLRA at 31 (denying essence exception where excepting party did not cite any contractual wording that conflicted with arbitrator's findings or otherwise demonstrate those findings were irrational, unfounded, implausible, or in manifest disregard of parties' agreement).
[35] Exceptions at 10, 12-16.
[36] U.S. Dep't of VA, Winston-Salem, N.C., 73 FLRA 794, 795 (2024) (VA).
[37] Exceptions at 12-13.
[38] Id. at 12.
[39] Id. at 12-13.
[40] Id. at 12 (citing 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7101(b)).
[41] Id.
[42] Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121) (internal quotation marks omitted).
[43] Id.
[44] AFGE, Loc. 2338, 73 FLRA 845, 849 (2024).
[45] NTEU, Chapter 103, 66 FLRA 416, 417 (2011).
[46] AFGE, Loc. 2172, 57 FLRA 625, 627 (2001) (Loc. 2172).
[47] Id. at 628.
[48] July 20, 2023 Hr'g Tr. at 15.
[49] Oct. 4, 2023 Hr'g Tr. at 75.
[50] Id. at 77.
[51] Loc. 2172, 57 FLRA at 628.
[52] DOJ, 74 FLRA at 30-31 (denying exceeded-authority argument where the excepting party did not explain how the arbitrator failed to resolve issue). We note the Union does not argue the award is contrary to law.
[53] Exceptions at 14-16.
[54] U.S. DHS, U.S. CBP, 74 FLRA 6, 8 (2024).
[55] VA, 73 FLRA at 796.
[56] U.S. Dep't of VA, Colmery-O'Neil VA Med. Ctr., Topeka, Kan., 73 FLRA 897, 899 (2024).
[57] See U.S. Dep't of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, 67 FLRA 114, 115 (2013) (Marine Corps); U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Ctr., Indian Head Div., 60 FLRA 530, 532 (2004) (Navy).
[58] Award at 3.
[59] Id. at 11.
[60] Id. at 3.
[61] Id. at 14; see also CBA at 256 (Article 51, Section 4 requires, in relevant part, that the Agency provide "[a]ccess to email" to each Union office and, correspondingly, "[i]t is expected that the Union will utilize such equipment and technology to communicate with and receive notices from the [Agency] as provided elsewhere in th[e a]greement").
[62] See Marine Corps, 67 FLRA at 115 (arbitrator did not exceed authority by addressing whether grievants worked a maxi-flex or compressed work schedule because it was necessary to resolve framed issue of whether the agency lawfully compensated grievants for Sunday and holiday work); Navy, 60 FLRA at 532 (arbitrator did not exceed authority by considering whether agency's overtime system violated parties' agreement because it was necessary to resolve whether the grievant was improperly denied overtime). We note that the Union argues Article 51 does not require the Union to use government equipment, Exceptions at 15, but does not claim the award fails to draw its essence from Article 51.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v74/74-19.html
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Copper Retirement Network Change Notification Filed By AT&T Wisconsin
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 24-623) on Nov. 18, 2024:* * *
Re: Copper Retirement Network Change Certification Received
Wisconsin Bell, LLC d/b/a AT&T Wisconsin (AT&T), an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), has filed certification that public notice of network change(s) involving the retirement of copper has been provided through its publicly accessible Internet site, as required by section 51.329(a)(2) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission),/1 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 24-623) on Nov. 18, 2024: * * * Re: Copper Retirement Network Change Certification Received Wisconsin Bell, LLC d/b/a AT&T Wisconsin (AT&T), an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), has filed certification that public notice of network change(s) involving the retirement of copper has been provided through its publicly accessible Internet site, as required by section 51.329(a)(2) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission),/1together with certification of service on identified interconnecting telephone exchange service providers, as required by section 51.333(a)./2 Upon initial review, the filing appears to be complete./3 Specific network change information can be obtained on the Internet at: https://clec.att.com/clec/shell.cfm?section=2937.
The incumbent LEC's certification(s) refer(s) to the change(s) identified below:
* * *
[View table in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Incumbent LEC contact:
Victoria Carter-Hall
Manager - Federal Regulatory
AT&T Services, Inc.
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 230-7525
An objection to an incumbent LEC's copper retirement notice may be filed by an information service provider or telecommunications service provider that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network. Such objections must be filed with the Commission, and served on the incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth business day following the release of this Public Notice./4 The effective implementation date(s) of network changes referenced in standard copper retirement notices are subject to the FCC public notice periods described under section 51.333(b)(2)./5 For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision, the date of "public notice" shall be the later of 90 days after the release date of this Public Notice, or the release date of any further public notice or order announcing final action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket will be closed.
Information service providers and telecommunications service providers that directly interconnect with the incumbent LEC's network may file objections, and other interested parties may file comments, regarding this network change notice using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Interested parties also may comment on this network change notice by sending an e-mail to NetworkChange@fcc.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must include the correct NCD Report Number or docket number in order for the comments to be considered in conjunction with this proceeding. All information submitted including names and addresses will be publicly available via the web.
Parties who choose to file paper copies must file an original and one copy of each filing. Such filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./6 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
For further information, please contact Michaela Mastroianni at (202) 418-1521, email: Michaela.Mastroianni@fcc.gov, in the Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.329(a)(2).
2/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(a).
3/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 51.325 through 51.335.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(c).
5/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(b)(2). In the absence of filed objections, a notice of copper retirement usually will be deemed final on the 90th day after the release of the Commission's public notice of the filing pursuant to section 51.333(b)(2). However, notice of copper retirement involving facilities that are not being used to provision services to any customers, usually will be deemed final on the 15th day after the release of the Commission's public notice of the filing. Id.
6/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-407508A1.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Copper Retirement Network Change Notification Filed By AT&T Alabama
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 24-625) on Nov. 18, 2024:* * *
Re: Copper Retirement Network Change Certification Received
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Alabama (AT&T), an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), has filed certification that public notice of network change(s) involving the retirement of copper has been provided through its publicly accessible Internet site, as required by section 51.329(a)(2) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 24-625) on Nov. 18, 2024: * * * Re: Copper Retirement Network Change Certification Received BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Alabama (AT&T), an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), has filed certification that public notice of network change(s) involving the retirement of copper has been provided through its publicly accessible Internet site, as required by section 51.329(a)(2) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC orCommission),/1 together with certification of service on identified interconnecting telephone exchange service providers, as required by section 51.333(a)./2 Upon initial review, the filing appears to be complete./3 Specific network change information can be obtained on the Internet at: https://clec.att.com/clec/shell.cfm?section=2937.
The incumbent LEC's certification(s) refer(s) to the change(s) identified below:
* * *
[View table in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Incumbent LEC contact:
Victoria Carter-Hall
Manager - Federal Regulatory
AT&T Services, Inc.
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 230-7525
An objection to an incumbent LEC's copper retirement notice may be filed by an information service provider or telecommunications service provider that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network. Such objections must be filed with the Commission, and served on the incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth business day following the release of this Public Notice./4 The effective implementation date(s) of network changes referenced in standard copper retirement notices are subject to the FCC public notice periods described under section 51.333(b)(2)./5 For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision, the date of "public notice" shall be the later of 15 days after the release date of this Public Notice, or the release date of any further public notice or order announcing final action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket will be closed.
Information service providers and telecommunications service providers that directly interconnect with the incumbent LEC's network may file objections, and other interested parties may file comments, regarding this network change notice using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Interested parties also may comment on this network change notice by sending an e-mail to NetworkChange@fcc.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must include the correct NCD Report Number or docket number in order for the comments to be considered in conjunction with this proceeding. All information submitted including names and addresses will be publicly available via the web.
Parties who choose to file paper copies must file an original and one copy of each filing. Such filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./6 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
For further information, please contact Michaela Mastroianni at (202) 418-1521, email: Michaela.Mastroianni@fcc.gov, in the Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.329(a)(2).
2/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(a).
3/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 51.325 through 51.335.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(c).
5/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(b)(2). In the absence of filed objections, a notice of copper retirement usually will be deemed final on the 90th day after the release of the Commission's public notice of the filing pursuant to section 51.333(b)(2). However, notice of copper retirement involving facilities that are not being used to provision services to any customers, usually will be deemed final on the 15th day after the release of the Commission's public notice of the filing. Id.
6/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-407512A1.pdf
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Report: 'Annual Report of the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman'
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 (TNSrep) -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following report on November 15, 2024 entitled "Annual Report of the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman."Here are excerpts:
* * *
The 2024 Annual Report of the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman highlights the severe difficulties reported by student borrowers due to persistent loan servicing failures and program disruptions. To assist struggling borrowers, the Department of Education implemented reforms resulting in billions of dollars in loan cancellation for almost 5 million borrowers, but servicing failures and legal challenges ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 (TNSrep) -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following report on November 15, 2024 entitled "Annual Report of the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman." Here are excerpts: * * * The 2024 Annual Report of the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman highlights the severe difficulties reported by student borrowers due to persistent loan servicing failures and program disruptions. To assist struggling borrowers, the Department of Education implemented reforms resulting in billions of dollars in loan cancellation for almost 5 million borrowers, but servicing failures and legal challengeshave hampered the implementation of critical loan relief efforts, including the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. The report highlights challenges facing borrowers, such as:
* Servicer failures that cause borrowers to pay inflated amounts that jeopardize their financial well-being: Borrowers described problems with billing, including inaccurate or late statements; errors with auto pay, including thousands of dollars incorrectly debited from accounts; and payments that were not properly applied to their balances. They also said servicers failed to give accurate guidance about income-driven repayment plans and imposed costly delays in processing refunds and applications for loan relief.
* Legal challenges to the SAVE program are delaying loan relief: Because of ongoing litigation, enrollment in and implementation of SAVE is on hold. The eight million borrowers already enrolled in SAVE are no longer able to make payments, enroll in most other income-driven repayment plans, or gain credit towards cancellation while the litigation is ongoing. The hundreds of thousands of additional borrowers waiting to enroll in income-driven repayment plans are similarly left with few options.
* Customer service "doom loops" and inaccurate communications: Borrowers reported being shuffled between servicers repeatedly without receiving help, waiting months for responses, and receiving inaccurate or misleading communications, such as miscalculated payment amounts and inaccurate due dates. Across the consumer complaint narratives highlighted in the report, borrowers waited an average of eight months for servicers to resolve their issues.
Although the federal student loan system faces many serious challenges, the private loan system can often be a riskier alternative for borrowers because private student loans are typically more expensive and offer worse terms than federal loans. While recent administrative efforts at reform have demonstrated that it is possible to relieve some of the burden of student debt for millions of borrowers using existing tools, they also underscore the need for clear legislative action to stabilize the federal student loan program and address the root causes of borrower harm.
The report also recommends several systemic reforms to improve the federal student loan system, including holding borrowers harmless when they encounter servicing errors and ensuring that servicers are held accountable for performance failures. It also notes the importance of considering broader changes to the student loan system to reduce the persistence and prevalence of student loan debt.
* * *
View full report at: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/annual-report-of-the-cfpb-student-loan-ombudsman-2024/