American Federation of Government Employees, Local 400 (Union) and United States, Department of the Army, Army Medical Department Activity Headquarters, 10TH Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York (Agency)
[ v58 p603 ]
58 FLRA No. 152
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY
HEADQUARTERS, 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION
FORT DRUM, NEW YORK
June 30, 2003
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Eric W. Lawson, 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 exception.
The Arbitrator ruled that the Union violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by bringing an outside consultant into the workplace after permission to do so was denied by the Agency. The Union has provided no basis for finding the award deficient. Accordingly, we deny the Union's exception.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The parties were negotiating over the removal of a partition at the Agency's medical facility. The Union requested permission to have its consultant examine the partition, but the Agency denied the request. Subsequently, a Union representative brought the consultant into the medical facility, and the Agency filed a grievance.
As relevant here, the Arbitrator framed the issue as whether the Union violated Article 3, Section 4 of the [ v58 p604 ] parties' collective bargaining agreement. [n1] The Arbitrator sustained the grievance. He found that the Agency had the right under Article 3, Section 4 to determine who would be allowed into the medical facility because such a determination related to internal security. Accordingly, he ruled that the Union violated Article 3, Section 4 when it facilitated the presence of its consultant at the medical facility in violation of an order from the Agency not to do so.
III. Positions of the Parties
A. Union's Exception
The Union contends that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement. The Union argues that the award cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement because there was no testimony given to show that the Union violated any of the Agency's rights under Article 3, Section 4. Specifically, the Union asserts that there was no testimony to show that the Union violated or interfered with any internal security practices of the Agency.
B. Agency's Opposition
The Agency contends that the Union provides no basis for finding that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
In reviewing an arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, we apply the deferential stan