United States Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, New York (Agency) and International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 98 (Union) (Authority decision, March 21, 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 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 the award involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Army Corps of Engineers New York District challenged an arbitrator's award involving IFPTE Local 98. The Authority denied the agency's exception, concluding that the award was not deficient on the ground the agency raised. The short decision cites the standard for deciding whether an award fails to draw its essence from a collective bargaining agreement. It does not describe the underlying grievance, the arbitrator's remedy, or the agency's detailed argument, so those matters cannot be characterized from this release.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7122(a) and 7123(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2425.7
• Outcome: The Authority denied the agency's exception to the arbitrator's award.
• Key point: The release applies the statutory review standard but gives no facts about the underlying dispute or remedy.

Full text (FLRA public release)

65 FLRA No. 132

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

UNITED STATES

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW YORK DISTRICT

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

(Agency)

and

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION

OF PROFESSIONAL AND

TECHNICAL ENGINEERS

LOCAL 98

(Union)

0-AR-4732

_____

DECISION

March 21, 2011

_____

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 Randi E. Lowitt filed by the Agencyunder § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.[*] The Union filed an opposition to the Agency’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 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 exception is denied.

[*]. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2425.7, the Agency requested that the Authority issue an expedited decision in this dispute. The Union did not object to the Agency’s request.