Afge Council 169 Master Labor Agreement
We conclude that if the arbitrator had understood that the MOA was not applicable by the Union, he would not have upheld the complaint that the MOA wanted to make. Therefore, the central factual finding underlying its price is patently erroneous, but for which it would have achieved a different result. See z.B. United States Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., 18 FLRA 374, 375-76 (1985) (granting an agreement that was not for mourning because it had been cancelled as a basis for a non-fact). There is nothing in the minutes to indicate that the adjudicator`s findings below have been challenged. For these reasons, we conclude that the central fact underlying the award is manifestly wrong, but for which the arbitrator would have obtained a different result and the award is therefore deficient. See 375-76. In addition, the arbitrator did not overstep his authority. The Union argues that the complaint was lodged and that the arbitration procedure was invoked in accordance with the framework agreement between the DLA and the Union. See id. at 4.
The Union states that the victim filed the complaint with his supervisor as part of the appeal procedure between the Union and the DLA and „increased” the complaint when his superior refused to accept it. The Union also argues that the DLA has not supported its assertion that it has not been informed of the hearing dates for arbitration proceedings. In addition, the agencies argue that the arbitration award does not derive its essence from the agreement. The agencies claim that the conciliator „mixes and votes badly] two separate collective agreements.” Id. at 11. The agencies argue that the award of arbitration subjects afMC to a negotiated appeal procedure in which it is not a party. See id. under 10-11. In addition, the price is not removed from the framework agreement. The Union argues that the FMCS erred in arbitration by refusing to establish a „special group” on the basis of the language of the master`s contract.
See id. at 6. The Union argues that only an arbitrator, not an FMCS, has the power to make an arbitration decision. See id. The grieving man was provided with a traffic ticket by AFMC, Tinker AFB`s host agency, because he was not wearing adequate safety equipment while riding the motorcycle. See the price at 2 o`clock. The victim filed a complaint as part of the control agreement between the DLA and the Union, which questioned the ticket. In the complaint, the Union attempted to impose a Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) on motorcycle safety between AFMC and AFGE, Council 214. See id. The Union is not a party to the MOA or a collective agreement with AFMC. For a distinction to be found to be defective because it does not derive its essence from the collective agreement, it must be noted that the award (1) cannot be inferred in any rational way from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded and inconsistent with the wording and objectives of the collective agreement that an infidelity with respect to the arbitrator`s duty is expressed; (3) is not a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or (4) a clear breach of the agreement.