American Federation of Government Employees, Local 0922, Council of Prisons Local 33 (Union) and United States, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons , Federal Correctional Institution, Forrest City, Arkansas (Agency)

[ v58 p300 ]

58 FLRA No. 68

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 0922, COUNCIL OF
PRISONS LOCAL 33
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
FORREST CITY, ARKANSAS
(Agency)

0-AR-3595

_____

DECISION

January 21, 2003

_____

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 M. J. Fox, Jr. 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 United States Dep't of Defense, Education Activity, Arlington, Virginia, 56 FLRA 887, 891 (2000) (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 not encompassed within the grievance); United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Med. Ctr., N. Chi., Ill., 52 FLRA 387, 398 (1996) (award not deficient because of bias on the part of an arbitrator where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the award was procured by improper means, that there was partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrator, or that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct that prejudiced the rights of the party); AFGE, Local 2921, 50 FLRA 184, 185-86 (1995) (arbitrator's determination of the procedural arbitrability of a grievance is subject to challenge only on grounds o