American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3448 (Union) and Social Security Administration, Region V (Agency) (Authority decision, June 8, 2010)

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

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 3448 challenged an arbitration award involving Social Security Administration Region V. The Authority found that the union had not shown the award to be deficient under the grounds raised. Its short decision cites standards for challenges based on evidence, arbitrator bias or excess of authority, procedural arbitrability, factual error, and interpretation of the labor agreement. The Authority denied the exceptions, leaving the award in place. The published text does not identify the underlying grievance, describe the award, or explain the union's individual arguments.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; arbitration award left in place.
• Key point: The Authority found no deficiency on the asserted grounds, but the decision gives no account of the underlying dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

XX FLRA No

64 FLRA No. 165

FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON,
D.C.

______

AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 3448

(Union)

and

SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

REGION V

(Agency)

0-AR-4590

______

DECISION

June 8, 2010

______

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 Elliot I. Beitner 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 NFFE, Local 1827, 52 FLRA 1378, 1385 (1997) (exception challenging an arbitrator’s evaluation of the evidence and determination of the weight to be accorded such evidence provides no basis for finding an award deficient); U.S. 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); U.S. 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); AFGE, Local 2921, 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); U.S. 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); U.S. 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.