FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

American Federation of Government, Employees, Local 446, (Union) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Asheville, North Carolina, (Agency)

[ v56 p421 ]

56 FLRA No. 59

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 446
(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL CENTER
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
(Agency)

0-AR-3311

_____

DECISION

May 19, 2000

_____

Before the Authority: Donald S. Wasserman, Chairman and Dale Cabaniss, Member.

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Judith A. La Manna 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 did not file 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, 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 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, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient as based on a nonfact where excepting party either challenges a factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration or fails to demonstrate that a central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator).

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.