FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • [Decision Number]

United States Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, New York (Agency) and International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 98 (Union)

 

65 FLRA No. 132 
 
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NEW YORK DISTRICT
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
(Agency)
 
and
 
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION
OF PROFESSIONAL AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERS
LOCAL 98
(Union)
 
0-AR-4732
 
_____
 
DECISION
 
March 21, 2011
_____
 
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members
 
        This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Randi E. Lowitt filed by the Agencyunder § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.[*] The Union filed an opposition to the Agency’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 ground raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See U.S. 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 Agency’s exception is denied.
 

[*].   Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2425.7, the Agency requested that the Authority issue an expedited decision in this dispute. The Union did not object to the Agency’s request.