Bremerton Metal Trades Council (Union) and U.S. Department of the Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington (Agency) (Authority decision, April 27, 2000)

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 Bremerton Metal Trades Council challenged an arbitration award involving Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The Authority found no defect on the grounds raised and denied the union’s exceptions. Its short order cites the standards for arbitrator bias, excess of authority, factual error, and interpreting a collective bargaining agreement. The release does not describe the underlying grievance or the award’s remedy.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Statutory review of arbitration awards.
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; the arbitration award stands.
• Key point: The union did not establish a recognized ground for disturbing the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v56 p255 ]

56 FLRA No. 32

BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD

BREMERTON, WASHINGTON

(Agency)

0-AR-3278

_____

DECISION

April 27, 2000

_____

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

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Kenneth M. McCaffree 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 Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, North Chicago, Illinois and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2107, 52 FLRA 387, 398 (1996) (award not deficient because of bias on the part of an arbitrator where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the award was procured by improper means, that there was partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrator, or that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct that prejudiced the rights of the party); 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); U.S. Department of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1497, 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient as based on a nonfact where excepting party either challenges a factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration or fails to demonstrate that a central fact underlying a award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator); 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.