National Association of Government Employees, Local R5-125 (Union) and United States, Department of the Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Pascagoula, Mississippi (Agency)

[ v59 p153 ]

59 FLRA No. 29

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL R5-125
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING,
CONVERSION AND REPAIR
PASCAGOULA, MISSISSIPPI
(Agency)

0-AR-3717

_____

DECISION

September 16, 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 Stanley Kravit 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 nited 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). [n1] 

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.



Footnote # 1 for 59 FLRA No. 29 - Authority's Decision

   The Union also contends, in its exceptions, that the grievance was properly before the Arbitrator under an agreement provision that requires fair and equitable treatment of employees. Under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5, the Authority will not consider issues that could have been, but were not, presented to the arbitrator. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 2145, 55 FLRA 366, 368 (1999). There is no