Immigration and Naturalization Service and AFGE National INS Council (Authority decision, December 16, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final Authority order resolving exceptions to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) generally does not extend to orders involving arbitral awards unless an order involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This order does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE challenged an arbitration award finding that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had not breached its labor agreement by temporarily assigning investigators to an alien processing group. The union argued that the arbitrator misunderstood an agency manual and misread the agreement. The Authority found that these objections merely disagreed with the arbitrator’s reasoning and did not show the award was deficient. It denied both exceptions, leaving the award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator’s contract interpretation did not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p673 ]

10:0673(113)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 113

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES (NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE COUNCIL),
AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. O-AR-196

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Sidney A. Wolff filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition.

The parties submitted to arbitration their dispute of whether in temporarily assigning journeyman investigators to the alien processing group, the Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Arbitrator determined that the Agency had not violated the collective bargaining agreement, and accordingly he denied the grievance.

In its first exception the Union contends that the award is contrary to rule or regulation. Specifically the Union claims that the Arbitrator misapprehended that the temporary assignments constituted details under the Agency's administrative manual. However, the Union's exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. The Union's exception constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions in resolving the submitted issue of whether the Agency violated the collective bargaining agreement and does not establish that the Arbitrator's award, which found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement and on that basis denied the grievance, is contrary to provisions of the Agency's administrative manual. See, e.g., Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Region VII and National Treasury Employees Union, 7 FLRA No. 49 (1981).

In its second exception, the Union essentially contends that the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. In support the Union argues that the Arbitrator should have found a violation of the agreement. However, the Union's exception constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement and consequently provides no basis for finding the award deficient. E.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1210 and Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 FLRA No. 17 (1982).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., December 16, 1982 Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman Henry B. Frazier III, Member Leon B. Applewhaite, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY