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 405 (Union) and United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Complex, Butner, North Carolina (Agency)

66 FLRA No. 82                                                                                                                                                                 






















January 25, 2012




Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members


                This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Phyllis Almenoff 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 grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a).[1]  See U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Portland, Me., 64 FLRA 772, 774 (2010) (arbitrator’s determination of procedural arbitrability of a grievance is not deficient when excepting party fails to establish that the determination is contrary to procedural requirements established by statute that apply to the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure or is deficient on grounds that do not directly challenge the procedural‑arbitrability determination); U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, IRS, Oxon Hill, Md., 56 FLRA 292, 299 (2000) (award not deficient where arbitrator bases award on separate and independent grounds and excepting party fails to establish that all of the grounds are deficient).[2]


Accordingly, the Union’s exceptions are denied.


[1] In addition to the exceptions discussed below, the Union argues that the award is based on a nonfact and that the Arbitrator was biased.  Exceptions at 2, 14.  These are recognized grounds for Authority review of an arbitration award.  5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(a)(2), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii).  Section 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations provides that an exception “may be subject to dismissal or denial if . . . [t]he excepting party fails to raise and support a ground” listed in 5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(a)‑(c).  5 C.F.R. § 2425.6(e)(1); Fraternal         Order of Police, Pentagon Police Labor Comm., 65 FLRA 781, 785 (2011).  As the Union does not provide any arguments for finding that the award was based on a nonfact or that the Arbitrator was biased, the Union has failed to support those exceptions.  Accordingly, we deny them under § 2425.6(e)(1).

[2] One of the Union’s exceptions challenges the Arbitrator’s finding that the grievance was substantively nonarbitrable under § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute.  However, the Arbitrator alternatively found that the grievance was procedurally nonarbitrable because it was time barred under the parties’ agreement, see Award at 11, which provides a separate and independent basis for the award.