United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Martinsburg, West Virginia (Agency) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-78 (Union)

 

67 FLRA No. 100                                                                                                                                                                                              
 
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL CENTER
MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA
(Agency)
 
and
 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL R4-78
(Union)
 
0‑AR‑5017
 
_____
 
DECISION
 
April 30, 2014
 
_____
 
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Ernest DuBester and Patrick Pizzella, Members
 
                This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Floyd D. Weatherspoon filed by the Agency under § 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 exceptions.
 
We have determined that this case is appropriate for issuance as an expedited, abbreviated decision under 5 C.F.R. § 2425.7.[1] 
 
As a preliminary matter, the Union argues that we should dismiss the Agency’s exceptions because the Agency failed to serve a copy of its exceptions on the Union president.[2] But, because the Union president is not the Union’s representative of record in this case, the Agency is not required to serve her.[3] Therefore, we reject the Union’s argument.
 
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. One of the Agency’s exceptions – that the Arbitrator’s award of 38.25 hours of overtime is arbitrary and capricious – does not raise a recognized ground for review listed in 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(a)-(c) and does not otherwise demonstrate a legally recognized basis for setting aside the award.[4] Therefore, we dismiss that exception under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations.[5] As for the Agency’s remaining exception, upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case and Authority precedent, we conclude that the award is not deficient on the ground raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a).[6] 
 
Accordingly, we dismiss, in part, and deny, in part, the Agency’s exceptions.