The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is currently closed due to a lapse in appropriations. FLRA offices, including the Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, and all Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, are not accepting filings, and no FLRA personnel are available for that purpose, except as provided below in Section 1.  Read the full announcement here.

FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 53 (Union) and United States Department of the Navy, Fleet And Industrial Supply Center, Crane Detachment, Crane, Indiana (Agency)

MEMORANDUM

64 FLRA No. 99

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 53

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

FLEET AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER

CRANE DETACHMENT

CRANE, INDIANA

(Agency)

0-AR-4578

_____

DECISION

March 16, 2010

 

_____

Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and

Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members

            This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator S. Jesse Reuben 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 did not file 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 grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a).  See U.S. 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.