I interpret the European Union`s assertion that the arbitral award is contrary to Article 13 of the Local ADDENDUM as an assertion that the arbitral award does not derive its nature from the collective agreement of the parties. In order to demonstrate that an arbitral award does not concern the nature of the agreement, the Union must demonstrate that the arbitral award (1) cannot be reasonably inferred from the agreement; 2. in reason and reality is so unfounded and so little related to the wording and purpose of the agreement that an infidelity with regard to the arbitrator`s obligation of prior advantage is evident; 3. Demonstrates manifest non-compliance with the agreement; or (4) does not constitute a plausible interpretation of the agreement. See Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Federation of Government Employees, Local 476, 47 FLRA 1053, 1061-62 (1993). Id. at 2, 3 (highlighted omitted). In addition, section 13 of the Parties` Local ADDENDUM states that the Base Commander has made a general decision with the Agency that drug-related offences, including those for which the respondent has been charged, would be referred to a U.S. judge for trial.
The arbitrator dismissed a complaint that the Agency had violated Air Force Rules 110-15 (AFR 110-15) and the parties` local endorsement by suspending the appeal body for its involvement in a drug incident. For the following reasons, I conclude that the European Union has not demonstrated that the allocation is deficient. As a result, we will deny the Union`s exceptions. 1. Art. 13 Section A of the parties` local addendum determines in the relevant part: the European Union has not shown that the arbitrator`s arbitral award following one of those tests was deficient. The arbitrator`s arbitral award was based on his interpretation of the parties` local addendum, as it applies to the circumstances of the case. We have no basis for concluding that the arbitrator`s interpretation of the agreement is implausible, irrational or unrelated to the wording of the agreement. As such, the European Union has not demonstrated that the arbitral award does not perceive its nature of the agreement. Accordingly, we will reject this exception. An employer who rejects the worker`s request for representation and continues to ask questions is committing an unfair labour practice (ULP).
In such circumstances, the worker may legally refuse to answer questions. The Union asserts that, although the Agency has decided not to prosecute, the infringement of the grievance is the nature that can be returned to the United States. . . .