American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 and U.S. Department of the Army, Multiple Launch Rocket System Project Office, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

[ v55 p639 ]

55 FLRA No. 107

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1858
(Union)

_____

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM PROJECT
OFFICE, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA
(Agency)

0-AR-3187

_____

DECISION

July 21, 1999

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S. Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Lloyd L. Byars 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 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 Professional Airways Systems Specialists, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Systems Standards, Battle Creek Flight Inspection Field Office, Battle Creek, Michigan, 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 law or regulation on which the party relies); U.S. Department of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1497, 48 FLRA 589, 593 (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