National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 178 (Union) and United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs And Border Protection, Eagle Pass, Texas (Agency)

XX FLRA No

64 FLRA No. 116                 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

CHAPTER 178

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

EAGLE PASS, TEXAS

 (Agency)

0-AR-4554

_____

DECISION

March 31, 2010

_____

Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and

Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members

            This matter is before the Authority on exception to an award of Arbitrator           Carol Kyler 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 grounds raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a).[*]  See U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient 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).

             

Accordingly, the Union’s exception is denied. 



[*]  In agreeing with the Authority’s denial of the Union’s exception, Member DuBester notes the following.  The Union argues that the Arbitrator was clearly erroneous in finding that the grievant’s Bid 3 was incomplete.  In support, the Union cites testimony at the hearing before the Arbitrator assertedly indicating that Bid 3 was considered by the parties to be accepta