57 FLRA No. 114

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Leonard E. Lindquist 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. [n*] 

      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 United States Dep't of the Air Force, Lowry AFB, Denver, Co., 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); United [ v57 p599 ] States Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Finance Center, Austin, Tx., 50 FLRA 73, 77-78 (1994) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or that other actions in conducting the proceeding so prejudiced a party as to effect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole); United States Dep't of the Navy, Naval Base, Norfolk, Va., 51 FLRA 305, 307-08 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator exceeded his authority where excepting party does not establish that arbitrator failed to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, disregarded specific limitations on his authority, or awarded relief to persons who were not encompassed within the grievance); Prof'l Airways Sys. Specialists, Dist. No. 1, MEBA/NMU, 48 FLRA 764, 768-69 (1993) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to establish that the award is in any manner contrary to the law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies).

      Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

   Contrary to the Agency's argument, the Union's exceptions were timely filed. See, e.g., United States Dep't of Commerce, PTO, 37 FLRA 1204, 1205 (1990) (award served by mail so five days added to due date; when due date falls on weekend or holiday, due date is next workday). The filing date is determined by the date of mailing, not the date of receipt by the Authority, or the opposite party. See AFGE, Local 225, 56 FLRA 686, 687 n.4 (2000).