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 2382 (Union) and United States, Department of Veterans Affairs, Carl T. Hayden Va Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona (Agency)

[ v58 p652 ]

58 FLRA No. 163

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2382
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
CARL T. HAYDEN VA MEDICAL CENTER
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
(Agency)

0-AR-3690

_____

DECISION

July 14, 2003

_____

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 Daniel R. Saling 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 ground raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See 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); AFGE, Local 1840, 45 FLRA 497, 499 (1992) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to specify law on which the party relies).

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.