AFGE Local 2250 and VA Hospital Muskogee (Authority decision, September 15, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves 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 Local 2250 grieved a VA hospital’s choice to fill a position by reassignment rather than through its merit promotion plan. The arbitrator found the position outside the bargaining unit and the grievance outside the agreement’s coverage. The union argued that he should have reached the merits. The Authority found he had properly resolved the threshold arbitrability issue and denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; nonarbitrability award upheld.
• Key point: An arbitrator need not decide the merits of a grievance outside the agreement’s scope.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p47 ]

10:0047(10)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 10

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2250
Union

and

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL,
MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA
Activity

Case No. O-AR-227

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR J. D. DUNN 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 DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE OVER THE ACTIVITY'S FILLING OF A
POSITION THROUGH REASSIGNMENT RATHER THAN UNDER ITS MERIT PROMOTION
PLAN. A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED AND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.

ONE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE MATTER
WAS ARBITRABLE. THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE POSITION IN QUESTION WAS
NOT INCLUDED IN THE UNIT AND THEREFORE WAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER
THE AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, HE FOUND THE ISSUE NOT ARBITRABLE.

IN ITS EXCEPTION, THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS
AUTHORITY BY FAILING TO RULE ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES PLACED BEFORE
HIM. HOWEVER, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD DEFICIENT AS IN EXCESS OF HIS AUTHORITY. IN THIS
REGARD, THE ARBITRATOR CLEARLY STATED ONE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE HIM TO BE
WHETHER THE MATTER WAS ARBITRABLE, AND HE FOUND IT NOT TO BE SO. THE
UNION HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IN WHAT MANNER THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED
ANY LIMITATION ON HIS AUTHORITY WHEN, IN OBSERVANCE OF WHAT HE
INTERPRETED TO BE A LIMITATION ON HIS AUTHORITY IMPOSED BY THE TERMS OF
THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, HE DISMISSED A GRIEVANCE
HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE. SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
MCGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE AND LOCAL 1778, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, 3 FLRA 252(1980). ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IS
DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 15, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY