American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12 and United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. (Authority decision, January 31, 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 arbitrator's award.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 12 challenged an arbitration award in a dispute with the Department of Labor. The Authority considered the union's exceptions under the rule allowing an award to be set aside when it conflicts with law, rule, or regulation, or is deficient on comparable grounds recognized in labor arbitration. It found no basis in the union's arguments to set aside the award and denied the exceptions. The published decision does not describe the underlying grievance or the terms of the award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7122(a) and 7123(a).
• Outcome: The Authority denied the union's exceptions, leaving the arbitration award in place.
• Key point: The cited objections to evidence, bias, hearing fairness, and legality did not establish that this award was deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

65 FLRA No. 101

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 12

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Agency)

0-AR-4721

_____

DECISION

January 31, 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 Ellen S. Saltzman 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); 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); 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.