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 1992 (Union) and United States Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Center Mapping Activity, Richmond, Virginia (Agency)

[ v63 p121 ]

63 FLRA No. 47

LOCAL 1992






February 18, 2009


Before the Authority: Thomas M. Beck, Chairman and
Carol Waller Pope, Member

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Robert T. Simmelkjaer 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. [n*] 

      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 exception and set forth in § 7122(a). See Prof'l Airways Sys. Specialists, Dist. 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 the law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies).

      Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Footnote * for 63 FLRA No. 47 - Authority's Decision

   In its opposition, the Agency asserts that the Union's second and third exceptions should be dismissed because these exceptions do not meet the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 2425.2. Opposition at 4. We agree. An exception must "set[ ] forth in full" the following substantive information: "(a) A statement of the grounds on which review is requested; (b) Evidence or rulings bearing on the issues before the Authority; [and] (c) Arguments in support of the stated grounds, together with specific reference to the pertinent documents and citations of authorities[.]" 5 C.F.R. § 2425.2(a)-(c). AFGE, Local 1698, 57 FLRA 1, 1-2 (2001). In its second and third exceptions, the Union claims that the award is contrary to law, and that it does not draw its essence from the parties' agreement. However, the Union cites to no specific law, or section of the parties' agreement to support its claims. As such, these exceptions fail to satisfy the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 2425.2 and must be dismissed. See AFGE, Local 1406, 54 FLRA 150, 153 (1998).