[19] The Agency`s non-factual exception also calls into question the Arbitrator`s decision on procedural variability on the ground that the Union was aware of the alleged infringements at the 2016 hearing. Exceptions Br. to 33 (stating that the August 2016 hearing is « the last one that can be argued that the Union has become aware of the problem »). We have already overturned the arbitrator`s procedural arbitration decision regarding institutions, the trust fund, prison systems and health services. Since the agency`s non-factual exception does not prove that the arbitrator erred about the remaining divisions and essentially calls into question the arbitrator`s interpretation of the contract, we dispute it. See AFGE, Loc. 2076, 71 FLRA 1023, 1025 (2020) (DuBester, then a member, agrees) (in the absence of evidence that the arbitrator`s findings were clearly false, the authority rejected the plea of non-fact); U.S. Dep`t of VA, VA Reg`l Off., St. Petersburg, Fla., 70 FLRA 799, 800-01 (2018) (DuBester, then a member, partially agrees and partially disagrees) (findings based on the arbitrator`s interpretation of a collective agreement cannot be challenged as facts). In order to understand the shortcomings of the majority finding, it is important to fully understand the context in which the Union lodged the complaint. As explained by the arbitrator, the union filed a complaint in 2014 alleging that the agency did not properly rotate overtime assignments in child care and food services1 and did not maintain adequate overtime records « in all other non-specialized departments. » 2 In resolving this complaint, an arbitrator found that the Agency did not maintain adequate overtime records in « all departments » in violation of the parties` collective agreement. 3 In order to remedy this infringement, that arbitrator instructed the Agency to grant the Union access to all overtime files and, in particular, to provide it with the files it had already requested for services other than detention and catering.4 And after receiving those files on 28 February 2018, the Union lodged the complaint in the case before us on 5 February 2018. ==References==2018.

In particular, if the majority concludes that the arbitrator`s decision violates the clear wording of Article 31 of the parties` agreement, it does not claim that the arbitrator did not apply that provision of the contract. Instead, the majority concludes that the conclusion of the arbitrator`s expediency does not derive its essence from the agreement between the parties, which is based on their own conclusion that the Union `relied on the evidence from the August 2016 arbitration hearing for the [four divisions]` and that the Union `knew or could reasonably have known of the overtime violations before 28 February, 2018.7 By replacing the arbitrator`s findings with its own findings, the majority ignores the proven reverence to the arbitrators in resolving significant exceptions. [38] Applying the standard duly applied to the arbitrator`s decision on procedural arbitrability, I would conclude that their conclusion constitutes a plausible interpretation of the parties` agreement and would therefore deny the agency`s substantive objection.9 [16] See U.S. DOJ, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Complex, Coleman, Fla., 71 FLRA 790, 791 (2020) (then-member DuBester disagrees) (the finding of procedural variability was not a plausible interpretation of the parties` agreement, since the complaint was filed beyond the negotiated forty-day period). In its opposition, the union argues that although it regularly receives complaints from workers about overtime, it « has never received any information …

these included specific and verifiable cases of overtime violations that could meet the specificity requirements to file a complaint by February 28, 2018. Opp`n Br. with 13. However, testimonies from the 2016 arbitration hearings drew the Union`s attention to possible violations in institutions, trust funds, prison systems and health authorities. Price at 6, 8-11. In addition, the arbitrator acknowledged that the Framework Agreement did not contain a requirement of specificity and that `it was not necessary for [the Union] to define the whole … [sound] Case » in a complaint. Id. at p.

15. Therefore, in 2016, the Union became aware of violations of the allocation of overtime for institutions, the trust fund, prison systems and health services, but filed its complaint prematurely in 2018. The main issues we face are: (1) the arbitrator`s decision on procedural relicenability does not derive its essence from the framework agreement; (2) if the sentence violates the doctrine contemplated by the doctrine; and (3) if the award violates management`s rights under section 7106(a)(2) of the Federal Service Labour-Management Relations Act (the Act). [1] We note that the arbitrator`s decision on procedural relicence does not derive part of its essence from the Framework Agreement. Therefore, we grant this agency exception in part, but challenge the other exceptions. Executive Order 13836, Developing Efficient, Effective and Cost-Effective Approaches to Collective Bargaining in the Federal Sector, signed by the President on May 25, 2018, requires organizations to file each collective agreement (CBA) and its expiry date within 30 days of the CBA`s effective date. EO 13836 also requires OPM to make these CbAs publicly available on the Internet. This promotes transparency by allowing the public to see the types of agreements between federal sector organizations and unions. .