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.         

Professional Airways Systems Specialists, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region

[ v55 p675 ]

55 FLRA No. 118

PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS
SPECIALISTS, DISTRICT NO. 1
MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO)
(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
SOUTHERN REGION
(Agency)

0-AR-3189

_____

DECISION

July 31, 1999

_____

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 Stanley H. Sergent 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 Agency'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, and Authority precedent, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in section 7122(a). See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1869 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston, South Carolina, 50 FLRA 172, 174 (1995) (award not deficient as being incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory where excepting party fails to establish that implementation of the award is impossible); Professional Airways Systems Specialists, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Systems Standards, Battle Creek Flight Inspection Field Office, Battle Creek, Michigan, 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 or regulation on which the party relies); United States Department of Labor (OSHA) and National Council of Field Labor Locals, 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 cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement or evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement).

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. [n1] 






Footnote # 1 for 55 FLRA No. 118

   In view of our decision, and as the Arbitrator did not award backpay, there is no basis for, and we do not address, the Union's request for attorney fees. See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 4015 and U.S. Department of the Navy, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, 52 FLRA 82 (1996).