Our Boston office is undergoing some construction and currently the phone system is down. Please call the FLRA main line (202) 218-7770 and the extension of the agent. Also, the Boston Fax line is down, please send Fax for Boston to FLRA Headquarters at (202) 482-6608 and it will be forwarded to the Boston office.

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.