26:0958(110)AR - Panama Canal Commission and MMP, Panama Canal Pilots Branch -- 1987 FLRAdec AR



[ v26 p958 ]
26:0958(110)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 26 FLRA No. 110
 
 PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
 Agency
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF 
 MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS 
 PANAMA CANAL PILOTS BRANCH
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1273
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Bernard Cushman filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
 part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
                  II.  Background and Arbitrator's Award
 
    During the term of the parties's collective bargaining agreement, the
 Agency, pursuant to Article 4 of the agreement, notified the Union of
 proposed revisions of its alcohol and drug prevention and rehabilitation
 program.  The Union requested bargaining over the revisions, submitting
 five specific proposals along with the request.  Approximately 1 month
 later, the Union submitted further proposals.  The Agency refused to
 bargain on the latter proposals, taking the position that under Article
 4, Section 1(c) of the agreement, it was not obligated to bargain over
 any proposal submitted more than 7 days after the date of the Union's
 request to bargain.  The Union grieved the Agency's decision and the
 matter was submitted to arbitration.
 
    The Arbitrator found that Article 4, Section 1(c) clearly provided
 that specific proposals must be submitted no more than 7 days after the
 date of the Union's request to bargain.  He found that, while the Union
 could have fleshed out or modified its original five proposals, its
 latter proposals were not reasonably related to or within the scope of
 its original timely proposals.  The Arbitrator found that the Agency had
 a right to limit the scope of bargaining to the five items or to
 provisions that may fairly be regarded as within the scope of those five
 items.  He found that on the record before him, the Agency did not
 improperly refuse to bargain in violation of its contractual
 obligations.  He therefore denied the Union's grievance.
 
                             III.  Discussion
 
    The Union contends that the award is deficient because it violates
 the laws or rules of contract interpretation and does not draw its
 essence from the parties' agreement.
 
    We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the
 Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
 section 7122(a) of the Statute;  that is, that the award is contrary to
 any law, rule or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
 gro