American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236 (Union) and United States General Services Administration (Agency) (Authority decision, January 13, 2011)

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 Authority denied the union's exceptions to the award.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Council 236 challenged an arbitration award involving the General Services Administration. The union argued, among other things, that the agency violated provisions of its telework order. The Authority found no basis in the exceptions to conclude that the award was contrary to a law, rule, or regulation or was otherwise deficient under the governing arbitration standard. It also declined to consider the telework-order arguments because the union had not raised them before the arbitrator. The award therefore remained in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a); 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5.
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; arbitration award left in place.
• Key point: Arguments omitted before the arbitrator cannot first be raised in exceptions to the Authority.

Full text (FLRA public release)

65 FLRA No. 87

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

COUNCIL 236

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

(Agency)

0-AR-4707

_____

DECISION

January 13, 2011

_____

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 Randall M. Kellyfiled 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 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 exceptions are denied.

[*]. To the extent that the Union asserts that the Agency violated §§ 1(a) and 8(d) of the Agency’s telework order, Exceptions at 1-2, such assertions were not raised before the Arbitrator, and therefore, are not properly before the Authority under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5. We note that § 2429.5 was amended effective October 1, 2010. See 75 Fed. Reg. 42,283 (2010). Because these exceptions were filed after that date, we apply the revised Regulation.