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.         

United States, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 517 (Union)

[ v58 p339 ]

58 FLRA No. 79







January 31, 2003


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

      This matter is before the Authority on exception to an award of Arbitrator C. Gordon Statham filed by the Agency under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Union filed an opposition.

      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 ground raised in the exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See AFGE, Local 2921, 50 LRA 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 Agency's exception is denied.

Footnote # 1 for 58 FLRA No. 79 - Authority's Decision

   The Agency also states that the award is contrary to law. This argument amounts to an Agency claim that the Arbitrator should have interpreted the contractual provision regarding continuing violations in a manner consistent with views of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concerning continuing violations in Title VII cases. The Agency, however, provides no support for its claim that Title VII law should govern the interpretation of the contract. See PASS, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO), 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).