[ v56 p476 ]
56 FLRA No. 71
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
June 30, 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 Jerome T. Barrett 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, 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 U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 22, 51 FLRA 305, 307-08 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance); 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 law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies). [n *]
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Footnote # * for 56 FLRA No. 71
Contrary to the Union's assertion, the Arbitrator did address its claim of a violation of due process. The Union has not supported its argument that the Arbitrator erred in finding the grievant was not deprived of notice of her appeal rights, where she had actual notice of those rights and, in fact, exercised them.