Bremerton Metal Trades Council, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union) and United States Department of the Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Bremerton, Washington (Agency)
[ v63 p138 ]
63 FLRA No. 51
BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
March 16, 2009
Before the Authority:
Carol Waller Pope, Acting Chairman and
Thomas M. Beck, Member
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Michael E. de Grasse 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. [n*]
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 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, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance); 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).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Footnote * for 63 FLRA No. 51 - Authority's Decision
In its opposition, the Agency claims that the exceptions were not timely filed and failed to satisfy other procedural requirements in the Authority's Regulations. Opposition at 2-4. With regard to the timeliness claim, the Arbitrator's award is dated January 5, 2007. Thus, under §§ 2425.1(b), 2429.22 of the Authority's Regulations, the exceptions had to be filed by February 12, 2007. As the exceptions are postmarked February 9, 2007, they are timely. In light of our decision, we do not address the Agency's other procedural objections.