U.S. Army Plant Representative Office, Bell Helicopter Textron, Fort Worth, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2475 (Authority decision, October 30, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award concerning duties assigned to quality assurance specialists. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), an order involving an arbitral award is generally excluded from judicial review unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Army plant representative office assigned quality assurance specialists to evaluate contractor estimates and inspect first aid kits and fire extinguishers. An arbitrator found the assignments permitted by the governing rules, labor agreement, job description, and past practice, and denied two grievances. The union argued that the arbitrator had not discussed one agreement section and had issued the award after the agreement's 30-day deadline. The Authority held that neither objection established a defect in the award. It denied the union's exceptions, leaving the grievance denials in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; arbitration award denying the grievances left in place.
• Key point: Failure to discuss one agreement section or meet the decision deadline did not establish that the award was deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p1329 ]

29:1329(109)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 109
29 FLRA 1329

30 OCT 1987

U.S. ARMY PLANT REPRESENTATIVE
OFFICE, BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS

Activity

and

LOCAL 2475, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1420

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator A. Dale Allen, Jr., 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. We deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

Two grievances were filed and submitted together to arbitration on the issues of whether the Activity properly assigned duties involving evaluating contractor estimates and inspecting first aid kits and fire extinguishers to quality assurance specialists. The Arbitrator denied the grievances. He found that the Statute, the language of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the job description of the specialist position and the past practice of the parties all permitted the assignment of the disputed duties.

III. Discussion

In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator failed to address in his award the claimed violation of Article III, Section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement. The Union also contends that the Arbitrator failed to issue his decision within 30 days as required by the collective bargaining 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: 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, Local 3696, 10 FLRA 51 (1982) (An arbitrator does not need to discuss specific agreement provisions involved and the fact that the opinion accompanying the award does not mention such provisions does not establish that the arbitrator did not rule on them. Consequently, an exception contending that an award is deficient because the arbitrator failed to address a specific agreement provision provides no basis for finding an award deficient.); Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer District, New Orleans, Louisiana and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1124, 17 FLRA 315 (1985) (an exception claiming after an award is issued that the award is deficient because it was not issued within an applicable time period provides no basis for finding an award deficient).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

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

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member