American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia (Authority decision, July 30, 1999)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to such an order unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision resolves exceptions to an arbitration award and does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The union at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center challenged an arbitration award. The Authority rejected claims concerning the arbitrator’s authority, procedural arbitrability, legal compliance, and the award’s interpretation of the agreement. The short ruling does not state the underlying grievance or remedy. The union’s exceptions were denied.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration-award review under federal labor law.
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; award stands.
• Key point: The union did not establish a recognized ground for setting aside the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v55 p650 ]

55 FLRA No. 111

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 987

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WARNER ROBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE

WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA

(Agency)

0-AR-3180

_____

DECISION

July 30, 1999

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S. Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

This matter is before the Authority on
exceptions to an award of Arbitrator James J. Odom, 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 Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.

Under section 7122(a) of the Statute, an
award is deficient if it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case, and Authority precedent, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in section 7122(a). See U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 22, 51 FLRA 305, 307-08 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2921 and U.S. Department of the Army, Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Dallas, Texas, 50 FLRA 184, 185-86 (1995) (arbitrator's determination of the procedural arbitrability of a grievance is subject to challenge only on grounds other than those that directly challenge the procedural arbitrability determination); Professional Airways Systems Specialists, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Systems Standards, Battle Creek Flight Inspection Field Office, Battle Creek, Michigan, 48 FLRA 764, 768-69 (1993) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to establish that the award is in any manner contrary to the law or regulation on which the party relies); United States Department of Labor (OSHA) and National Council of Field Labor Locals, 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990) (award not deficient as failing to draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement where excepting party fails to establish that the award cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected to the wording and purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement or evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are
denied.