American Federation of Government Employee, Local 2342 (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Black Hills Health Care System, Fort Meade, South Dakota (Agency)

[ v56 p1096 ]

56 FLRA No. 194

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE, LOCAL 2342
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, MEDICAL CENTER
BLACK HILLS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
FORT MEADE, SOUTH DAKOTA
(Agency)

0-AR-3378

_____

DECISION

February 13, 2001

_____

Before the Authority: Donald S. Wasserman, Chairman; Dale Cabaniss and Carol Waller Pope, Members.

I.     Statement of the Case

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Charles J. Crider 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 exceptions, 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 United States Dep't of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Va., 51 FLRA 305, 307-08 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance); United States 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 cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement or evidences a manifest disregard of the agr