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.         

National Air Traffic Controllers Association (Union) and United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Kansas City, Missouri (Agency)

63 FLRA No. 150                  

 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

______ 

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION

(Union)                       

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

(Agency)

0-AR-4491 

_____ 

DECISION

July 6, 2009 

_____ 

Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman and

Thomas M. Beck, Member


            This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator John B. Barnard 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 exception.

            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 United States Dep’t of the Air Force, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo., 48 FLRA 589, 593-94 (1993) (award not deficient as based on a nonfact where excepting party either challenges a factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration or fails to demonstrate that the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached by the arbitrator).

            Accordingly, the Union’s exception is denied.