Source: http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v58/58-152.html
Timestamp: 2014-12-19 21:53:04
Document Index: 309150648

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7122', 'art 2425', '§ 7106', '§ 7106', '§ 7106', '§ 7106']

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 400 (Union) and United States, Department of the Army, Army Medical Department Activity Headquarters, 10TH Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York (Agency) | FLRA.GOV
FLRA.gov will be offline from 5 a.m.- 5 p.m. Sunday, December 21, 2014, for maintenance. The eFiling application will remain available via this link: FLRA.gov/eFiling. We apologize for any inconvenience. Authority Chairman and Members Find Types of Cases, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, Guidances, Policies, Manuals, ULP Process, Forms, Representation, ADR Services, and Training.Federal Service Impasses Panel Find Jurisdiction, Statute, Work Schedules Act, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Solicitor, Administrative Law Judges, IG & Others Find General Information about these Offices and Contact Information.training & alternative dispute resolutionFind FLRA Training Information and ADR Services. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 400 (Union) and United States, Department of the Army, Army Medical Department Activity Headquarters, 10TH Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York (Agency) [ v58 p603 ] 58 FLRA No. 152
ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY
HEADQUARTERS, 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION
0-AR-3616
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members
I. Statement of the Case This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Eric W. Lawson, Jr. 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. The Arbitrator ruled that the Union violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by bringing an outside consultant into the workplace after permission to do so was denied by the Agency. The Union has provided no basis for finding the award deficient. Accordingly, we deny the Union's exception. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award The parties were negotiating over the removal of a partition at the Agency's medical facility. The Union requested permission to have its consultant examine the partition, but the Agency denied the request. Subsequently, a Union representative brought the consultant into the medical facility, and the Agency filed a grievance. As relevant here, the Arbitrator framed the issue as whether the Union violated Article 3, Section 4 of the [ v58 p604 ] parties' collective bargaining agreement. [n1] The Arbitrator sustained the grievance. He found that the Agency had the right under Article 3, Section 4 to determine who would be allowed into the medical facility because such a determination related to internal security. Accordingly, he ruled that the Union violated Article 3, Section 4 when it facilitated the presence of its consultant at the medical facility in violation of an order from the Agency not to do so. III. Positions of the Parties A. Union's Exception The Union contends that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement. The Union argues that the award cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement because there was no testimony given to show that the Union violated any of the Agency's rights under Article 3, Section 4. Specifically, the Union asserts that there was no testimony to show that the Union violated or interfered with any internal security practices of the Agency. B. Agency's Opposition The Agency contends that the Union provides no basis for finding that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement. IV. Analysis and Conclusions In reviewing an arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, we apply the deferential standard of review that the Federal courts apply in reviewing grievance arbitration awards in the private sector. See, e.g., AFGE Local 2608, 56 FLRA776, 778 (2000). Our review is deferential because it is the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement for which the parties have bargained. See, e.g., United States Dep't of the Air Force, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., 56 FLRA 249, 251 (2000). Under this standard, the Authority will find that an arbitration award is deficient as failing to draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement when the appealing party establishes that the award: (1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected with the wording and purposes of the collective bargaining agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; (3) does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or (4) evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement. See United States Dep't of Labor (OSHA), 34 FLRA573, 575 (1990). In this case, the Arbitrator found that the Agency had the right under Article 3, Section 4 to determine who would be allowed into the facility because such a determination related to internal security. The Arbitrator further found that the Union violated that right when it facilitated the presence of its consultant at the facility in violation of an order from the Agency not to do so. The Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of Article 3, Section 4 disregards the agreement or is irrational, unfounded, or implausible. Accordingly, we deny the Union's exception. [n2] V. Decision The Union's exception is denied. Footnote # 1 for
58 FLRA No. 152 - Authority's Decision
Article 3, Section 4 restates § 7106 of the Statute.
As management's rights under § 7106 of the Statute were not raised to the Arbitrator, the fact that Article 3, Section 4 restates § 7106 of the Statute did not require the Arbitrator to address whether the Agency's actions were in accordance with § 7106, and does not require us to consider whether the Arbitrator's interpretation of Article 3 is consistent with the Statute. See AFGE Local 507, 58 FLRA378, 379-80 (2003) (Chairman Cabaniss dissenting).