American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236 (Union) and United States General Services Administration (Agency) (Authority decision, November 18, 2009)

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. The release does not state that this order involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Council 236 challenged an arbitration award in a dispute with the General Services Administration. The Authority considered the union's exceptions under the standards for legal error, arbitrator authority, factual error, and interpretation of the labor agreement. It found no reason to set the award aside and denied the exceptions. The published decision does not describe the underlying grievance, the award, or the union's specific objections, so those details cannot be stated from this release.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; arbitration award remains in place.
• Key point: The short release records the result and review standards without describing the case-specific dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

64 FLRA No. 35

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

American Federation of Government Employees

COUNCIL 236

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES gENERAL SERVICES Administration

(Agency)

0-AR-4564

_____

DECISION

November 18, 2009

_____

Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and

Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator James A. Cashen 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 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); Prof’l Airways Sys. Specialists, Dist. No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO), 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, rule, or regulation on which the party relies); United States Dep’t of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 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 the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator); United States Dep’t of Labor (OSHA), 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 evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement).

Accordingly, the Union’s exceptions are denied.