American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1815 (Union) and United States Department of the Army, Army Aviation Center of Excellence, 110th Aviation Brigade, Fort Rucker, Alabama (Agency)

66 FLRA No. 86 

 

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1815

(Union)

 

and

 

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY AVIATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

110TH AVIATION BRIGADE

FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA

(Agency)

 

0-AR-4775

 

_____

 

DECISION

 

January 31, 2012

_____

 

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 Danielle L. Hargrove filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service

Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.[1]  The Agency filed an opposition to the Union’s exception.[2] 

 

The Union claims that the award fails to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement, arguing that the agreement’s “essence” is to “attempt to resolve issues at th[e] lowest level.”  Exception at 8; Cover Letter to Exception at 3.  The Union contends that the Agency’s violation of the parties’ agreement forced the Union to pursue this matter to arbitration, contrary to the essence of the agreement.  Exception at 8; Cover Letter to Exception at 3.

 

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 U.S. 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.