American Federation of Government Employees, Council Local 2128 (Union) and United States Department of Defense, Defense Contract Management Agency, DCMC Bell Helicopter, Hurst, Texas (Agency)
[ v57 p932 ]
57 FLRA No. 197
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL LOCAL 2128
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DCMC BELL HELICOPTER, HURST, TEXAS
July 10, 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 John B. Barnard 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 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 Nat'l Air Traffic Controllers Ass'n, 55 FLRA 1025, 1027 (1999) (award not deficient as incomplete, ambiguous or contradictory where excepting party fails to establish that implementation of the award is impossible); 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 the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (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 a central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator).