Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees, Metal Trades Council (Union) and United States Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic (Agency) (Authority decision, August 4, 2014)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving 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 Tidewater Metal Trades Council challenged an arbitration award involving the Navy's Mid-Atlantic Naval Facilities Engineering Command. The Authority reviewed the union's exceptions in an expedited, abbreviated decision and found no basis under the federal labor statute to set aside the award. It denied the exceptions, leaving the arbitration award in place. The published decision does not describe the underlying dispute, the award's remedy, or the union's specific objections.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7122(a) and 7123(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2425.7
• Outcome: The union's exceptions were denied; the arbitration award remained in place.
• Key point: The abbreviated decision reports that the union did not establish a statutory ground to overturn the award but gives no case-specific reasoning.

Full text (FLRA public release)

67 FLRA No. 130

TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

METAL TRADES COUNCIL

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

MID-ATLANTIC

(Agency)

0‑AR‑5034

_____

DECISION

August 4, 2014

_____

Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and

Ernest DuBester and Patrick Pizzella, Members

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Norman J. Stocker filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute)[1] and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.[2]

We have determined that this case is appropriate for issuance as an expedited, abbreviated decision under § 2425.7 of the Authority’s Regulations.[3]

Under § 7122(a) of the Statute,[4] 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, we conclude that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a).[5]

Accordingly, we deny the Union’s exceptions.

[1] 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).

[2] 5 C.F.R. § 2425.

[3] Id. § 2425.7 (“Even absent a [party’s] request, the Authority may issue expedited, abbreviated decisions in appropriate cases.”).

[4] 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).

[5] U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient as based on a nonfact where excepting party either challenges a factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration or fails to demonstrate that a central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which the arbitrator would have reached a different result); U.S. DOL (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 purposes 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).