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.         

National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-47 (Union) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, James River Reserve Fleet, Fort Eustis, Virginia (Agency)

[ v57 p151 ]

57 FLRA No. 37

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R4-47
(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
JAMES RIVER RESERVE FLEET
FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA
(Agency)

0-AR-3397

_____

DECISION

May 9, 2001

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman; Donald S. Wasserman and Carol Waller Pope, Members.

      This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Lucretia Dewey Tanner filed by the Union under § 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 exception.

      Under § 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 exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See United States Dep't of Labor (OSHA), 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 exception is denied.