American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987 and United States Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Force Base, Georgia (Authority decision, June 23, 2021)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving an arbitral ruling 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 states that no unfair labor practice was alleged.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 987 challenged an arbitration award involving Warner Robins Air Force Base and asked the Authority for an expedited, abbreviated decision. The agency did not oppose that request, and the Authority granted it after considering the case's complexity, likely precedential value, similarity to other decisions, and the absence of an unfair-labor-practice allegation. The Authority denied one exception because the Union did not support its assertion that the award conflicted with an agency regulation. It found no defect under the remaining grounds and denied all of the Union's exceptions; the abbreviated public decision does not describe the underlying grievance or the award's terms.

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 exception alleging conflict with an agency regulation must include supporting argument, and the Authority may deny an unsupported claim in an abbreviated decision.

Full text (FLRA public release)

72 FLRA No. 71

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 987

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA

(Agency)

0‑AR‑5680

_____

DECISION

June 23, 2021

_____

Before the Authority: Chairman Ernest DuBester, and

Colleen Duffy Kiko and James T. Abbott, Members

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Samuel J. Nicholas, Jr. 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]

The Union requests an expedited, abbreviated decision under § 2425.7 of the Authority’s Regulations.[3] The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union’s exceptions, and therefore did not oppose the Union’s request. Upon full consideration of the circumstances of this case – including the case’s complexity, potential for precedential value, and similarity to other, fully detailed decisions involving the same or similar issues, as well as the absence of any allegation of an unfair labor practice – we grant the Union’s request.

The Union argues that the award is contrary to an agency regulation[4] but does not support that argument. Therefore, we deny that exception under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations.[5]

As for the Union’s remaining exceptions,[6] 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 those exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a).[7]

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; see Exceptions Form at 8.

[4] Exceptions Form at 4 (citing “master labor agreement”).

[5] 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1); see also Fraternal Ord. of Police, Pentagon Police Lab. Comm., 65 FLRA 781, 784-85 (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).

[6] Exceptions Form at 5-8; Exceptions Br. 1-3.

[7] 5 U.S.C. § 7122; U.S. Dep’t of VA, 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, Loc. 1869, 50 FLRA 172, 174 (1995) (award not deficient as being incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory where excepting party fails to establish that implementation of the award is impossible); AFGE, Loc. 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 conducted the proceedings in a manner that so prejudiced the party as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole); 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).