Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

54:0591(60)AR - - National Air Traffic Controllers Association & DOT, FAA, Tampa, FL [ DOT = Department of Transportation; FAA = Federal Aviation Administration ] - - 1998 FLRAdec AR - - v54 p591



[ v54 p591 ]
54:0591(60)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


54 FLRA No. 60

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

TAMPA, FLORIDA

(Agency)

0-AR-3061

_____

DECISION

July 14, 1998

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S. Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator William H. Holley, Jr. filed by the Union under section 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.(*)

Under section 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, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on any of the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in section 7122(a).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.




FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

*/ In its opposition, the Agency contends that the Union's exceptions should be dismissed because the Union: (1) used an incorrect citation; (2) failed to include its address and telephone number; and (3) changed its representative when it filed the exceptions. These contentions do not warrant dismissal of the exceptions. The Union included its address on the envelope which contained the exception, and notified the Agency of the change in the Union's representative when the exceptions were filed. Although the Union used an incorrect citation and did not provide its telephone number, there is no assertion that the Agency was prejudiced thereby.