[lemma=□] □ □ □ □
[lemma=","] □ □ □ □
[lemma=union] □ □ □ □
Primarily , the Union maintains that the parties ' collective bargaining agreement had expired before the grievance in this case and that under the Statute the Union consequently was not longer bound by the provisions of the agreement relating to the appointment and number of stewards . Essentially , the Union argues that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator failed to award the grievant a retroactive temporary promotion and backpay for the period of time he found that she was assigned the duties of the GS-5 position . In addition , as a result of the post-award actions , the Union asserts that the Arbitrator 's status quo ante remedy has been superseded by subsequent events . Finally , the Union argues that even if the Authority has the power to grant the Agency 's motions , the Authority should not do so because ( 1 ) there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case , ( 2 ) granting the motions would interfere with the statutory scheme for impasse resolution , and ( 3 ) the parties are at impasse and implementation of the Panel 's orders is appropriate . Lastly , the Union maintains that the Agency 's need to cancel leave is relatively infrequent and , as a result , the adverse effects of such cancellation fall upon a few , rather than most , employees . Notwithstanding the Agency 's position that it never declared the proposals to be nonnegotiable , the Union claims that an Agency representative at the bargaining table orally declared that the proposals interfered with management rights . Thus , the Union argues that the award is inconsistent with law because the Arbitrator improperly allowed the Agency to collaterally attack a final and binding interest arbitration award to which no timely exceptions had been filed . In addition , the Union denies that its proposal would conflict with 5 CFR Section 735,205 , stating that the proposal is intended to authorize use of the computer system for " official " union business , which it says was meant to exclude " internal " union business . Thus , the Union argues that the request for a " remedy for the effect of sharing office space on employees ' performance appraisals " was known to the Agency from the onset of the grievance process and was before the Arbitrator . In this regard , the Union asserts that , in the absence of a prescribed burden of proof , arbitrators have the authority to establish any burden of proof they consider appropriate . In its Petition for Review , the Union asserts that the intent of the proposal is to protect employees from being forced to endorse false or inaccurate proposals or data , which endorsements will harm employees ' professionalism or credibility . Therefore , the Union argues that the Agency 's exception should be denied . In contending that the award is contrary to law , the Union asserts that the circumstances under which federal employees are allowed to smoke in the workplace are negotiable conditions of employment .