American Federation of Government Employees, Local 171, Council of Prisons Locals 33 (Union) and United States, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Agency)

[ v61 p145 ]

61 FLRA No. 29

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 171
COUNCIL OF PRISONS LOCALS 33
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
(Agency)

0-AR-3974

______

DECISION

August 5, 2005

______

Before the Authority: Dale abaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Charles J. Crider 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 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 1668, 50 FLRA 124, 126 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or that other actions in conducting the proceeding so prejudiced a party so as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole); Prof'l Airways Sys. Specialists, Dist, No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO), 48 FLRA 764, 768-69 (1993) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to establish that the award is in any manner contrary to the law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies); United States Dep't of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient as based on a nonfact where excepting party either challenges a factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration or fails to demonstrate that the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator); 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.



* for 61 FLRA No. 19 - Authority's Decision

   The Arbitrator also submitted a document to the Authority containing a response to an argument in the Union's exceptions. Because we find that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient, we find it unnecessary to address whether to accept the document for consideration. Cf. United States Dep't of Health and Human Services, Soc. Sec. Admin., San Juan, P.R., 46 FLRA 1134, 1135 (1993) (Authority did not consider a submission from an arbitrator responding to an argument in the exceptions).