FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 (Union) and United States, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Security Assistance Management Directorate (Agency)

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 (Union) and United States, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Security Assistance Management Directorate (Agency)

[ v59 p601 ]

59 FLRA No. 107

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 1858
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY AVIATION
AND MISSILE COMMAND
SECURITY ASSISTANCE
MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE
(Agency)

0-AR-3760

_____

DECISION

January 28, 2004

_____

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

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Lawrence I. Hammer 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.

      Under section 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 section 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 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 59 FLRA No. 107 - Authority's Decision

   We construe the Union's contention that the award is contrary to Articles 7, 9, and 24 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement as an assertion that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement.