American Federation of Government Employees Local 2199 (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs Va Regional Office Salt Lake City, Utah (Agency)

558 Decisions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority 63 FLRA No. 157 63 FLRA No. 157 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Local 2199 (Union) and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VA REGIONAL OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (Agency) 0-AR-4519 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. _____ DECISION July 16, 2009 _____ Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman and Thomas M. Beck, Member This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Michael D. Rappaport filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service LaborManagement Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union’s exceptions. 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). See Prof’l Airways Sys. Specialists, Dist. No. 1, MEBA/ NMU (AFL-CIO), 48 FLRA 764, 768-69 (1993) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to establish that the award is in any manner contrary to the law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies); 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); United States Dep’t of Labor (OSHA), 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990) (award not deficient