American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2408 and United States Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Caribbean Health Care System, San Juan, Puerto Rico (agency decision, November 7, 2023)

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 expressly noted that no party alleged an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2408 asked the Authority to issue an expedited, abbreviated decision on its exceptions to an arbitration award, and the VA did not oppose that request. The Authority granted the request after considering the case's complexity, possible precedential value, similarity to other decisions, and the absence of an unfair-labor-practice allegation. It denied the union's legal, regulatory, and implementation arguments because the union did not support them. It also found no basis for the union's claim that the award failed to draw its essence from the agreement. The abbreviated official decision does not describe the underlying grievance or the award's substantive 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 all union exceptions and left the arbitration award in place.
• Key point: Merely naming recognized grounds for review without supporting arguments does not establish that an arbitration award is deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

73 FLRA No. 139

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2408

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VA CARIBBEAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

(Agency)

0‑AR‑5885

DECISION

November 7, 2023

Before the Authority: Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman, and Colleen Duffy Kiko, Member

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Peter E. Gillespie 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.

The Union requests an expedited, abbreviated decision under § 2425.7 of the Authority’s Regulations.[3] The Agency does 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 the award is contrary to law; contrary to regulation; and incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory as to make implementation of the award impossible; but does not support those arguments. Therefore, we deny those exceptions under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations.[4] As for the Union’s essence exception, upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case and Authority precedent, we conclude that the award is not deficient on the ground raised in the exception 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] See id. § 2425.7 (in certain circumstances, “the excepting party may request” an expedited, abbreviated decision).

[4] Id. § 2425.6(e)(1); see also Fraternal Ord. of Police, Pentagon Police Lab. 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. 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).