International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 734 (Union) and United States, Department of the Navy, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia (Agency)
[ v61 p298 ]
61 FLRA No. 53
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
September 28, 2005
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 Dennis R. Nolan 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. [*]
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 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 exception is denied.
Footnote * for 61 FLRA No. 53 - Authority's Decision
The Union also filed a supplemental submission, which included an Agency memorandum that pre-dates the Arbitrator's award. The Authority's Regulations do not provide for the filing of a supplemental submission. Therefore, it is incumbent on the moving party to demonstrate why the Authority should consider its supplemental submission. See, e.g., United States Dep't of the Treasury, United States Customs Serv., El Paso, Tex., 52 FLRA 622, 625 (1996). The Authority's Regulations also bar consideration of evidence that was not presented to an arbitrator. See, e.g., AFGE, Council Local 2128, 59 FLRA 406, 407 n.4 (2003). As the Union has not explained why the Authority should consider its supplemental submission, which includes evidence that would be barred in any event, we decline to cons