American Federation of Government Employees, Local 0083 (Union) and United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Texas (Agency) (Authority decision, June 4, 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 0083 challenged an arbitration award involving the Bureau of Prisons' La Tuna facility. The Authority concluded that the union had not shown the award to be deficient under the grounds raised. The short decision cites standards for arbitrator bias, excess of authority, an unfair hearing, factual error, and interpretation of the labor agreement. The Authority denied the exceptions, leaving the award in place. The published text does not describe the underlying grievance, the award's terms, or the union's particular 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 under the asserted grounds, but its short decision gives no account of the underlying dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

RECOMMENDATION FOR SHORT-FORM DISPOSITION

64 FLRA No. 161

FEDERAL
LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON,
D.C.

_____

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 0083

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

LA TUNA, TEXAS

(Agency)

0-AR-4616

_____

DECISION

June 4, 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 Robert B. Moberly 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 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 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); 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.