[ v63 p142 ]
63 FLRA No. 55
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
NORTH TEXAS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
March 18, 2009
Before the Authority:
Carol Waller Pope, Acting Chairman and
Thomas M. Beck, Member
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator George E. Larney 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). [n*] 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); 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).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Footnote * for 63 FLRA No. 55 - Authority's Decision
Under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5, the Authority will not consider evidence offered by a party that could have been, but was not presented to the arbitrator. As applied here, the record demonstrates that the subject matter of the affidavit attached to the Union's exception addresses a union negotiator's interpretation of the contract, a matter that could have been, but was not, raised to the Arbitrator. Therefore, the Authority will not consider the affidavit. See, e.g., United States Dep't of the Interior, Nat'l Park Serv., Valley Forge Nat'l Historical Park, Valley Forge, Pa., 57 FLRA 258, 259 (2001).