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, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1897 (Union) and United States, Department of the Air Force, Hurlburt Field, Florida (Agency)

[ v58 p737 ]

58 FLRA No. 173

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 1897
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HURLBURT FIELD, FLORIDA
(Agency)

0-AR-3678

_____

DECISION

July 22, 2003

_____

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

      This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator David M. Schneck 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. [n1]  The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exception. [n2] 

      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 NLRB, Wash., D.C., 48 FLRA 1337, 1346-47 (1994) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where arbitrator failed to address all allegations raised by a party).

      Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.



Footnote # 1 for 58 FLRA No. 173 - Authority's Decision

   We note that subsequent to the filing of its exceptions, the Union submitted a document that was omitted from the exceptions. As the exceptions explicitly refer to this document, and as the Agency failed to file an opposition in compliance with the Authority's Regulations, see n.2, infra, we will consider the document. Cf. AFGE, Local 2142, 58 FLRA No. 167, slip op. at 1 n.1 (July 15, 2003).


Footnote # 2 for 58 FLRA No. 173 - Authority's Decision

   The Agency's opposition was timely filed, but was procedurally deficient. The Authority directed the Agency to comply with the requirement of the Authority's procedural Regulations. The Agency did not file a response to the Order within the time limit provided. Therefore, the Authority has not considered the Agency's opposition.