American Federation of Government Employees, Local 131 (Union) and United States, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Agency) (Authority decision, May 31, 2005)
Tuscaloosa VA and AFGE Local 131 (FLRA 0-AR-3949): Union's arbitration exceptions denied
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Authority precedent from 2005, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award. 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 address an unfair labor practice.
Plain-English summary
AFGE Local 131 challenged an arbitration award involving the Tuscaloosa VA medical center. The Authority's published decision does not describe the underlying grievance or the terms of the award. It states that the union failed to establish a defect under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a), citing standards for arbitrator bias, excess of authority, and denial of a fair hearing. The Authority did not consider the agency's opposition, whose timeliness was in question. It denied the union's exceptions, leaving the arbitration award in place.
Decision snapshot
- Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
- Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; arbitration award remains in place.
- Key point: The brief decision found no demonstrated bias, excess of authority, or unfair hearing.
Full text (FLRA public release)
[ v60
p999 ]
60 FLRA No. 179
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 131
(Union)
and
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL CENTER
TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA
(Agency)
0-AR-3949
_____
DECISION
May 31, 2005
_____
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Cary J. Williams filed by the Union under § 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 § 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 § 7122(a). See United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Med. Ctr., N. Chi., Ill., 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); United States Dep't of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Va., 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); and AFGE, Local 1668, 50 FLRA 124, 126 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or that other actions in conducting the proceeding so prejudiced a party so as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Footnote * for
60
FLRA No. 179
- Authority's Decision
We note that there is a procedural issue regarding the timeliness of the Agency's opposition. We have not considered that
opposition in reaching our decision in this case. Because we find that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient,
we find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the opposition was timely filed. See AFGE, Local 3599, 53 FLRA 1267,
1267 n.* (1998).
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace