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 1741 (Union) and United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Milan, Michigan (Agency)

[ v57 p696 ]

57 FLRA No. 142







February 14, 2002


Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Robert L. Nichols, Sr. 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 exceptions.

      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 exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See AFGE, Local 3627, 53 FLRA 1351, 1351 n.* (1998) (argument that agency's actions were contrary to law is not properly before Authority under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5 where that argument was not raised before arbitrator); United States Dep't of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Va., 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); AFGE, Local 2921, 50 FLRA 184, 185-86 (1995) (arbitrator's determination of the procedural arbitrability of a grievance is subject to challenge only on grounds other than those that directly challenge the procedural arbitrability determination). [n1] 

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. [n2] 

Footnote # 1 for 57 FLRA No. 142

   Although the Union has framed its exceptions as assertions that the award is based on a nonfact and fails to draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, both exceptions challenge the Arbitrator's findings with respect to procedural arbitrability.

Footnote # 2 for 57 FLRA No. 142

   The Arbitrator found that the grievance was not arbitrable because it lacked specificity, but he went on to address whether the Union provided its witness list in a timely manner. The Union has not demonstrated that the Arbitrator's finding regarding specificity of the grievance is deficient. Accordingly, there is no need to address whether the Arbitrator's findings regarding the Union's witness list are deficient. See AFGE, Local 916, 56 FLRA 847, 847 (2000).