FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004 (Union) and United States Department of Defense, Defense Distribution Depot, Susquehanna, Pennsylvania (Agency)

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004 (Union) and United States Department of Defense, Defense Distribution Depot, Susquehanna, Pennsylvania (Agency)

[ v57 p698 ]

57 FLRA No. 144

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2004
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT
SUSQUEHANNA, PENNSYLVANIA
(Agency)

0-AR-3444

_____

DECISION

February 28, 2002

_____

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 Edward J. O'Connell 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 § 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 AFGE, Local 1668, 50 FLRA 124, 126 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or that other actions in conducting the proceeding so prejudiced a party so as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole); 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); Soc. Sec. Admin., 32 FLRA 765, 767-68 (1988) (award not deficient as contrary to public policy where excepting party fails to clearly show that award violates an explicit, well-defined and dominant public policy).

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.