Panama Canal Commission and International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Panama Canal Pilots Branch (Authority decision, April 30, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union’s exceptions to an arbitration award limiting bargaining to timely submitted proposals. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

The Panama Canal Commission revised its alcohol and drug prevention program, and the pilots’ union submitted five timely bargaining proposals. It sent additional proposals about a month later. An arbitrator found that the labor agreement required specific proposals within seven days of the bargaining request and that the later items were outside the scope of the original five. The Authority rejected the union’s challenge to that contract interpretation and denied its exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union’s exceptions denied; grievance denial stands.
• Key point: The arbitrator could enforce the agreement’s seven-day submission period for new bargaining proposals.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v26 p958 ]

26:0958(110)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

26 FLRA No. 110

PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
Agency

and

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF
MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS
PANAMA CANAL PILOTS BRANCH
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1273

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Bernard Cushman filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

During the term of the parties's collective bargaining agreement, the Agency, pursuant to Article 4 of the agreement, notified the Union of proposed revisions of its alcohol and drug prevention and rehabilitation program. The Union requested bargaining over the revisions, submitting five specific proposals along with the request. Approximately 1 month later, the Union submitted further proposals. The Agency refused to bargain on the latter proposals, taking the position that under Article 4, Section 1(c) of the agreement, it was not obligated to bargain over any proposal submitted more than 7 days after the date of the Union's request to bargain. The Union grieved the Agency's decision and the matter was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator found that Article 4, Section 1(c) clearly provided that specific proposals must be submitted no more than 7 days after the date of the Union's request to bargain. He found that, while the Union could have fleshed out or modified its original five proposals, its latter proposals were not reasonably related to or within the scope of its original timely proposals. The Arbitrator found that the Agency had a right to limit the scope of bargaining to the five items or to provisions that may fairly be regarded as within the scope of those five items. He found that on the record before him, the Agency did not improperly refuse to bargain in violation of its contractual obligations. He therefore denied the Union's grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because it violates the laws or rules of contract interpretation and does not draw its essence from the parties' agreement.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. See, for example, Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987, 25 FLRA No. 80 (1987) (mere disagreement with the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement is no basis for finding an award deficient or for finding that it does not draw its essence from the agreement). Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1987.

/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY