FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1709 (Union) and United States Department of the Air Force, 436TH Airlift Wing, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware (Agency)

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1709 (Union) and United States Department of the Air Force, 436TH Airlift Wing, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware (Agency)

[ v63 p5 ]

63 FLRA No. 3

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 1709
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
436TH AIRLIFT WING
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, DELAWARE
(Agency)

0-AR-4249

_____

DECISION

October 30, 2008

_____

Before the Authority: Thomas M. Beck, Chairman and
Carol Waller Pope, Member

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Charles J. Coleman 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 exceptions. [n*] 

      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 exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). United States Dep't of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Va., 51 FLRA 305, 307-08 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance); United States Dep't of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient as based on a nonfact where excepting party either challenges a factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration or fails to demonstrate that the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator); AFGE, Local 1840, 45 FLRA 497, 499 (1992) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to specify law on which the party relies); 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 exceptions are denied.

Footnote # * for 63 FLRA No. 3 - Authority's Decision

   The Agency's opposition, which was due July 9, 2007, was filed July 25, 2007. Accordingly, the opposition is untimely and has not been considered. See NTEU, 60 FLRA 226, 226 n.1 (2004); 5 C.F.R. § 2429.21(b).