American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3854 (Union) and United States Department of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve Command, March Air Reserve Base, California (Agency)

 
65 FLRA No. 94   
 
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 3854
(Union)
 
and
 
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE RESERVE COMMAND
MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE, CALIFORNIA
(Agency)
 
0-AR-4717
 
_____
 
DECISION
 
January 31, 2011
 
_____
 
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members
 
        This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Edna E. J. Francis 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 Agencyfiled an opposition to the Union’s exception.[1]
 
        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, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, IRS, Oxon Hill, Md., 56 FLRA 292, 299 (2000) (award not deficient where an arbitrator bases an award on separate and independent grounds, and the excepting party fails to establish that all of the grounds are deficient)[2]; 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).
 
        Accordingly, the Union’s exception is denied. 
 

[1].   As the Union’s arguments meet the requirements for granting review, we reject the Agency’s request to dismiss the Union’s exceptions. See 5 C.F.R. 2425.6(e)(1).
 

[2].   The award is based on the Arbitrator’s findings that: (1) an Agency regulation did not authorize the grievant’s supervisor to grant administrative leave; and (2) Comptroller General decisions regarding unauthorized administrative leave are controlling precedent.