Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 44
SSA, Baltimore, Maryland and AFGE, Local 1923, (Jascourt, Arbitrator), 0-AR- 3346 (Decided May 24, 2001)
In this case, the Authority, denied the Agency's exceptions. The Authority noted that arbitrators exceed their authority when they resolve an issue not submitted to arbitration. Arbitrators do not exceed their authority by addressing any issue that is necessary to decide a stipulated issue, or by addressing any issue that necessarily arises from issues specifically included in a stipulation. In determining whether an arbitrator has exceeded his or her authority, the Authority accords an arbitrator's interpretation of a stipulation of issues the same substantial deference that it accords an arbitrator's interpretation and application of a collective bargaining agreement. Here, the Authority found that the Arbitrator clearly addressed the stipulated issue, and found no basis to conclude that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by deciding an issue that was not before him.
As to the allegation that the award was contrary to law, the Authority concluded that the Arbitrator was not required to apply a particular burden of proof in resolving the contractual claims, accordingly, the Authority denied the exception. The Authority noted that under its precedent if a standard of proof is set forth in law, rule, regulation or a collective bargaining agreement, then an arbitrator's failure to apply the prescribed standard will constitute a basis for finding the award deficient as contrary to law, rule, regulation, or as failing to draw its essence from the agreement. However, in the absence of a specified standard of proof, arbitrators have the authority to establish whatever standard they consider appropriate and the Authority will not find an award deficient because a party claims that an incorrect standard was used. Lastly, the Authority found that the award did not fail to draw its essence from the parties' agreement.