American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2516 (Union) and United States, Department of the Army, William Beaumont, Army Medical Center, Fort Bliss, Texas (Agency)
[ v58 p738 ]
58 FLRA No. 174
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
FORT BLISS, TEXAS
July 22, 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 Bruce J. Ponder 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 ground raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See NFFE, Local 1827, 52 FLRA 1378, 1385 (1997) (exception challenging an arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence and determination of the weight to be accorded such evidence provides no basis for finding an award deficient); 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 Union's exceptions are denied.
Footnote * for 58 FLRA No. 174 - Authority's Decision
We note that subsequent to the filing of its exceptions, the Union submitted a document that was inadvertently omitted from the exceptions. As the exceptions explicitly refer to this document, and in the absence of any opposition from the Agency, we will consider the document.