American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2924 (Union) and United States Department of the Air Force, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona (Agency) (Authority decision, September 28, 2010)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception 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 identify an unfair labor practice issue.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2924 challenged an arbitration award involving Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, claiming a conflict with an agency regulation. The Authority considered the challenge but found that the union had not established that the award conflicted with the rule it cited. It rejected the agency's requests to dismiss the exception for an inadequate statement and a claimed service defect. The decision does not describe the underlying grievance, the award's terms, or the regulation the union invoked. The award remains in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a); 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27
• Outcome: Union exception denied; arbitration award remains in place.
• Key point: The union did not show that the award conflicted with the agency regulation it cited.

Full text (FLRA public release)

65 FLRA No. 25

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2924

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE

TUCSON, ARIZONA

(Agency)

0-AR-4678

_____

DECISION

September 28, 2010

_____

Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Charles Cambridge 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 exception.*

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 ground raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See 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).

Accordingly, the Union’s exception is denied.

• In its opposition, the Agency argues that the exception should be dismissed because the Union fails to state the basis of its exception and because the Union failed to comply with service requirements set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 2429.27. See Opp’n at 1. We reject the Agency’s first argument because the Union’s exception sufficiently states a claim that the award is contrary to an Agency regulation. See Exception at 1. As to the Agency’s argument regarding service requirements, the Agency provides no support for this claim and, thus, we deny this claim as a bare assertion. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 933, 65 FLRA 9, 11 (2010). For these reasons, the Agency does not demonstrate that dismissal of the exception is warranted, and we consider the exception.