American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2145 (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia (Agency) (Authority decision, February 22, 2018)

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 abbreviated decision does not state that the order involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2145 filed exceptions to an arbitration award involving the Richmond VA Medical Center. The Union claimed in part that the award was too incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory to implement, but it did not support that claim. The Authority found no defect under the Union's remaining contract and exceeded-authority arguments and denied all exceptions. The expedited public release does not describe the underlying grievance, the award's terms, or the Union's other specific arguments.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7122(a) and 7123(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. §§ 2425.6(e)(1) and 2425.7
• Outcome: The Authority denied the union's exceptions and left the arbitration award in place.
• Key point: An assertion that an award is impossible to implement must be supported with an explanation showing the alleged ambiguity or contradiction.

Full text (FLRA public release)

70 FLRA No. 84

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2145

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

MEDICAL CENTER

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

(Agency)

0‑AR‑5336

_____

DECISION

February 22, 2018

_____

Before the Authority: Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman, and Ernest DuBester and James T. Abbott, Members

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

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

The Union argues that the award is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory as to make implementation of the award impossible, but does not support that argument. Therefore, we deny that exception under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations.[4] As for the Union’s remaining exceptions, 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. pt. 2425.

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

[4] 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1); see also Fraternal Order of Police, Pentagon Police Labor Comm., 65 FLRA 781, 785 (2011) (exceptions are subject to denial under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations if they fail to support arguments that raise recognized grounds for review).

[5] U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Va., 51 FLRA 305, 307-08 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his or her authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, resolved an issue not submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his or her authority, or awarded relief to those not encompassed within the grievance); 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).