Veterans Administration Medical Center and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 85 (Authority decision, July 31, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies AFGE Local 85's exceptions to an arbitration award rejecting a workplace safety grievance at a VA medical center. 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

An employee grieved that a VA medical center had failed to provide a safe and healthful workplace. An arbitrator found that the employee had been given a safe place to work on the occasion at issue and denied the grievance. The union argued that the award was deficient because it did not specifically discuss whether the employee faced imminent danger under another labor agreement provision. The Authority held that an arbitrator need not address every provision by name in the written opinion and denied the union's exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; safety grievance remains denied.
• Key point: Omitting express discussion of one contract clause did not make the arbitration award deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v28 p360 ]
28:0360(56)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA NO. 56

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 85

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1364

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

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

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration based on an alleged failure of the Activity to provide a safe and healthful work environment for the grievant. The Arbitrator found under Article 24, Section 1 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement that the grievant had been provided with a safe place to work on the occasion in question, and as his award he denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator failed to specifically address the issue of whether the grievant was in imminent danger under Article 24, Section 6 of the agreement.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; specifically, 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 relations cases. See, for example, U.S. Bureau of Prisons and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 3696, 10 FLRA 51 (1982) (arbitrators need not discuss the specific agreement provisions involved, and the fact that the opinion accompanying an award does not mention such provisions does not establish that the arbitrator did not rule on them and does not provide a basis for finding the award deficient).

Accordingly, the union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY