Social Security Administration, Highland Park, Michigan (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3239 (Union) (Authority decision, September 30, 2010)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final Authority order denying the Social Security Administration's exceptions to an arbitral award. The arbitration exclusion in 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) generally limits judicial review of Authority orders involving arbitral awards.

Plain-English summary

The Social Security Administration challenged an arbitration award involving its Highland Park office and AFGE Local 3239. The Authority found no ground under the federal labor statute to set aside the award. It rejected an unsupported claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and dismissed a staffing rights argument because the agency had not raised it before the arbitrator. The short decision does not describe the underlying grievance or the remedy in the award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7106(a)(1) and 7122(a).
• Outcome: Agency exceptions denied or dismissed; arbitral award left in place.
• Key point: An unsupported exception, or an argument withheld from the arbitrator, does not justify setting aside an award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

65 FLRA No. 34

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 3239

(Union)

0-AR-4676

_____

DECISION

September 30, 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 Joseph W. Gardner filed by the Agency under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations. The Union did not file an opposition to the Agency’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 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 Agency’s exceptions are denied.

• To the extent that the Agency’s statement concerning when an arbitrator exceeds his authority could be construed as an assertion that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority here, see Exceptions at 5, the Agency provides no argument in support of this statement. We thus reject this statement as a bare assertion. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 446, 64 FLRA 15, 16 (2009). To the extent that the Agency asserts that the award is contrary to management’s right to determine the number of employees required to accomplish its mission under § 7106(a)(1) of the Statute, see Exceptions at 2-3, such assertion was not raised before the Arbitrator and, therefore, is not properly before the Authority under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5. See SSA, San Juan, P.R., 63 FLRA 589, 589 n.* (2009) (citing AFGE, Local 1741, 57 FLRA 696 (2002)). Accordingly, we dismiss this exception.