FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2145 (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia (Agency)

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2145 (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia (Agency)

[ v60 p977 ]

60 FLRA No. 175

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2145
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL CENTER
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
(Agency)

0-AR-3919

_____

DECISION

May 31, 2005

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

I.      Statement of the Case

      This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Robert E. Nagle filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exception. [*] 

      Under § 7122(a) of the Statute, an award is deficient if it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case, and Authority precedent, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See United States Dep't of Labor (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 purpose 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).

      Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Footnote * for 60 FLRA No. 175 - Authority's Decision

   By Order of the Authority on February 1, 2005, the Agency was directed to submit four copies of its opposition and attachments. However, in response to this Order the Agency failed to provide four copies of its attachments. Accordingly, the Authority has not considered any attachments that were filed with the Agency's opposition.