United States Customs Service, Miami, Florida (Agency) and National Treasury Employees Union (Union)

[ v57 p676 ]

57 FLRA No. 134

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(Agency)

and

NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES UNION
(Union)

0-AR-3474

_____

DECISION

January 15, 2002

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Mollie H. Bowers 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.

      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 grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See PASS, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO), 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 the law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies); [n *] 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 evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement).

      Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied.



Footnote # * for 57 FLRA No. 134

   The Agency asserts that the award is contrary to precedent of the Merit Systems Protection Board. As this case does not involve an action covered by 5 U.S.C. §§ 4303 or 7512, that precedent does not provide a basis for fi