United States, Department of Veterans Affairs, W.G. "Bill" Hefner Va Medical Center, Salisbury, North Carolina (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1738 (Union)
[ v59 p422 ]
59 FLRA No. 62
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
W.G. "BILL" HEFNER VA MEDICAL CENTER, SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
October 30, 2003
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator William P. Murphy filed by the Agency under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's exception. The Agency filed a response to the Union's opposition. [n1]
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 exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See 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, resolved an issue not submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance).
Accordingly, the Agency's exception is denied.
Footnote # 1 for 59 FLRA No. 62 - Authority's Decision
The Authority's Regulations do not provide for the filing of a response to an opposition to a party's exceptions. Although § 2429.26(a) permits the filing of additional documents, the Authority has held that it is incumbent on the moving party to demonstrate why the Authority should consider such supplemental submissions. See United States Dep't of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, 57 FLRA 543, 543 n.1 (2001); United States Dep't of the Treasury, United States Customs Serv., El Paso, Tex., 52 FLRA 622, 625 (1996). The Agency has not demonstrated that its additional submission should be considered. Accordingly, we have not considered the submission.