Defense Mapping Agency and AFGE Local 3407 (Authority decision, August 16, 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

An arbitrator rejected grievances over two Defense Mapping Agency vacancy announcements, finding one grievance late and no improper consideration in the other. The union asserted that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, ignored facts, and was biased, but filed no promised supporting brief. The Authority found the bare allegations insufficient to show a deficient award and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a)(2).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; vacancy award upheld.
• Key point: Unsupported labels of arbitral error did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v09 p928 ]

09:0928(131)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

9 FLRA No. 131

DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY,
HYDROGRAPHIC/TOPOGRAPHIC
CENTER
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3407, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. O-AR-387

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR J. HARVEY DALY 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 ACTIVITY FILED
AN OPPOSITION.

THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER CONCERNS THE ACTIVITY'S FILLING OF
POSITIONS UNDER POSITION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS (PVA) 80-243 AND 81-75.
GRIEVANCES WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF TWO EMPLOYEES THAT WERE ULTIMATELY
SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION CLAIMING THAT THE PROCEDURES USED IN FILLING
THESE POSITIONS WERE CONTRARY TO GOVERNING REGULATIONS.

AT THE OUTSET THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINED THAT THE GRIEVANCE RELATING
TO PVA 80-243 WAS NOT TIMELY FILED AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ARBITRABLE. AS
HIS AWARD ON THE MERITS, THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINED THAT THE GRIEVANTS
HAD BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO PVA 81-75 AND THAT THEY
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.

THE UNION FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD STATING ONLY THAT THE AWARD
WAS DEFICIENT BECAUSE:

1. THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY.

2. THE AWARD WAS NOT BASED UPON THE CLEARLY PROVEN FACTS PRESENTED
   AT THE HEARING.

3. THE ARBITRATOR WAS BIASED AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A FAIR HEARING BY
   REFUSING TO HEAR AND ACCEPT PERTINENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE.

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS STATEMENT, THE UNION REQUESTED AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO JUNE 7, 1982 TO FILE A BRIEF CONTAINING ARGUMENTS AND
CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THE STATED GROUNDS IN THE
EXCEPTIONS. HOWEVER, NO SUCH BRIEF WAS FILED. BECAUSE THE BARE
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS IN THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE IN
WHAT MANNER THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT AS ASSERTED BY THE UNION, THE UNION'S
EXCEPTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER
SECTION 7122(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS
ARE DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 16, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY