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 1156 (Union) and United States, Department of the Navy, Naval Inventory Control Point, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (Agency)

[ v59 p457 ]

59 FLRA No. 72

LOCAL 1156






November 24, 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 Rochelle K. Kaplan 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 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 evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement). [n1] 

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Footnote # 1 for 59 FLRA No. 72 - Authority's Decision

      The Union also contends, in its exceptions, that the Agency's actions violated § 7116(a)(5) of the Statute and Article 7, Section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement. Under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5, the Authority will not consider issues that could have been, but were not, presented to the arbitrator. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 2145, 55 FLRA 366, 368 (1999). There is no indication in the award or elsewhere in the record that these issues were raised before the Arbitrator. Consequently, we will not consider the arguments on exception. See AFGE, Local 507, 58 FLRA 378, 379 (2003) (the Authority did not consider the union's argument that the agency violated the Statute because there was no evidence that issue was presented to the arbitrator).