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.         

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1017 and U.S. Department of the Army, 90th Army Reserves Command, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 353rd Engineer Group, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[ v55 p1302 ]

55 FLRA No. 209







January 31, 2000


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 Richard B. Craig 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. [n1] 

      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 any of the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in section 7122(a). See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1668 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska, 50 FLRA 124, 126 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or that other actions in conducting the proceeding so prejudiced a party so as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole); U.S. Department of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1497, 48 FLRA 589, 593 (1993) (award not deficient on ground that award is based on a nonfact where exception party fails to demonstrate that a central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which the arbitrator would have reached a different result); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3947 and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Medical Center, Rochester, Minnesota, 47 FLRA 1364, 1370-71 (award sustaining a 14-day suspension not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to apply mitigation rule applied by the Merit Systems Protection Board because that rule does not apply in cases involving such suspensions); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1840 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, 45 FLRA 497, 499 (1992) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to specify law on which the party relies). [n2] 

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Footnote # 1 for 55 FLRA No. 209

   The grievant filed a motion to intervene. Authority regulations do not provide for such intervention in arbitration cases. This is consistent with the Statute, which provides that arbitration may be invoked by the exclusive representative or the agency, but not by an employee grievant. Compare 5 U.S.C. § 7121(b)(1)(C)(ii) (employee grievant has independent right to present case in grievance process) with 5 U.S.C. § 7121(b)(1)(C)(iii) (only exclusive representative has right to invoke arbitration). Because a grievant has no statutory right to become a party in arbitration, there is no basis to become a party through intervention. However, the arguments made by the Union on the grievant's behalf have been carefully considered.

Footnote # 2 for 55 FLRA No. 209

   Although the Union claims that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator did not "reference a single law, rule, or regulation," the Union does not specify a law, rule, or regulation with which the award allegedly conflicts. Exceptions at 1.