{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"size": 4, "snippet_links": [{"key": "formation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [4, 20]}, {"key": "transformational-event", "type": "definition", "offset": [38, 60]}, {"key": "transfer-of-employees", "type": "clause", "offset": [97, 118]}, {"key": "bargaining-units", "type": "definition", "offset": [137, 153]}, {"key": "the-country", "type": "definition", "offset": [291, 302]}, {"key": "the-statute", "type": "definition", "offset": [385, 396]}, {"key": "employees-must", "type": "clause", "offset": [411, 425]}, {"key": "appropriate-unit", "type": "definition", "offset": [437, 453]}, {"key": "eligible-employees", "type": "clause", "offset": [559, 577]}, {"key": "of-units", "type": "clause", "offset": [657, 665]}, {"key": "the-parties", "type": "definition", "offset": [671, 682]}, {"key": "in-particular", "type": "clause", "offset": [826, 839]}, {"key": "responsible-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [1069, 1084]}], "samples": [{"hash": "4fb4W2MRBtN", "uri": "/contracts/4fb4W2MRBtN#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 22.9664613279, "published": true}, {"hash": "44ZPrE6fKHW", "uri": "/contracts/44ZPrE6fKHW#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 22.9555099247, "published": true}, {"hash": "jKgJ6euzbbW", "uri": "/contracts/jKgJ6euzbbW#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 22.9377138946, "published": true}], "snippet": "The formation of the SSO Market was a transformational event. It necessitated the organizational transfer of employees from 82 different bargaining units. Since then, the SSO Market and its CHRA team have had to grapple with the aftermath, all the separate units at 62 MTFs scattered across the country. Clearly the present situation cannot be maintained indefinitely. Section 7112 of the Statute provides that employees must be in \u201can\u201d appropriate unit rather than the most appropriate one.4 The SSO Market is an organization with over 7,000 bargaining unit eligible employees, and all are now controlled by the SSO Market Director, General Cox. The range of units that the parties propose for the SSO Market starts with as few as two units, then three units, six units, up to as many as 58 separate units. The NAIL proposal in particular, the one that would result in 58 units, only incrementally improves the existing situation. A reduction from 82 to 58 units for 62 MTFs, would amount to a slight improvement, but remains an unwieldy number for the sole CHRA team responsible for servicing the entire SSO Market and all these MTFs.", "hash": "17ff126133fdfaafabfb349f94c96d50", "id": 1}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [], "samples": [{"hash": "4ikzeBp4RO2", "uri": "/contracts/4ikzeBp4RO2#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Intergovernmental Agreement", "score": 15.0, "published": true}], "snippet": "WRM Policies", "hash": "34e76d4d07f371e4519390d3d48435bf", "id": 2}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-evidence", "type": "clause", "offset": [13, 25]}, {"key": "the-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [101, 108]}, {"key": "interpretation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [123, 144]}, {"key": "case-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [190, 198]}, {"key": "each-case", "type": "definition", "offset": [247, 256]}], "samples": [{"hash": "3MITzdwX9VX", "uri": "/contracts/3MITzdwX9VX#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Claim", "score": 22.1882272416, "published": true}], "snippet": "I considered the evidence in this matter together with the submissions of both Counsel together with the law and Counsel\u2019s interpretation of the law. I deemed it unnecessary to cite all the case law relied on by Counsel, but I read and considered each case.", "hash": "b9dd00db34086b730678e7ccdd164e3d", "id": 3}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "in-\u2587", "type": "clause", "offset": [109, 113]}, {"key": "substantive-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [249, 264]}, {"key": "reference-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [281, 293]}, {"key": "consolidation-of-matters", "type": "clause", "offset": [357, 381]}], "samples": [{"hash": "cL7yt88wuoY", "uri": "/contracts/cL7yt88wuoY#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Decision", "score": 20.0116358658, "published": true}], "snippet": "I should start by making three statements. One, this is not a running down case and de La Bastide \u2587\u2587\u2019s dicta in \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 is not helpful to LOS. Two, I have searched the CPR, which guides my court procedure and proceedings and I have searched the substantive law and can find no reference to joint trials or hearing cases jointly. Three, it is clear that consolidation of matters can have no", "hash": "bf493a13707130b32d221586cd0c84a3", "id": 4}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-award", "type": "clause", "offset": [3, 12]}, {"key": "the-agency", "type": "clause", "offset": [78, 88]}, {"key": "the-authority-will", "type": "clause", "offset": [170, 188]}, {"key": "an-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [234, 246]}, {"key": "purposes-of-the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [436, 461]}, {"key": "the-arbitrator", "type": "clause", "offset": [512, 526]}, {"key": "interpretation-of-the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [563, 594]}, {"key": "manifest-disregard", "type": "definition", "offset": [615, 633]}, {"key": "the-\u2587", "type": "clause", "offset": [678, 683]}, {"key": "progressive-discipline", "type": "clause", "offset": [840, 862]}, {"key": "the-grievant", "type": "clause", "offset": [867, 879]}, {"key": "engaged-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [880, 890]}, {"key": "agreement-states", "type": "definition", "offset": [1015, 1031]}, {"key": "suspension-from-duty", "type": "definition", "offset": [1106, 1126]}, {"key": "pay-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [1131, 1138]}, {"key": "second-offense", "type": "definition", "offset": [1320, 1334]}, {"key": "for-purposes-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1336, 1351]}], "samples": [{"hash": "9qpWMiKVjg0", "uri": "/contracts/9qpWMiKVjg0#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Discipline Agreement", "score": 32.0784803044, "published": true}], "snippet": "A. The award does not fail to draw its essence from the discipline agreement. The Agency argues that the award fails to draw its essence from the discipline agreement.21 The Authority will find an award fails to draw its essence from an agreement when the excepting party establishes the award:\n(1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected with the wording and purposes of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; (3) does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or (4) evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement.22 The Agency asserts that the \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 a manifest disregard for the discipline agreement because that agreement \u201crequired the two[-]calendar[-]day paper suspension to . . . be used for progressive discipline\u201d if the grievant engaged in any further misconduct, but the Arbitrator treated the 2021 misconduct as a first offense.23 Section 2.c. of the discipline agreement states that the \u201c\u2018paper suspension\u2019 will be equivalent to a two (2) calendar day suspension from duty and pay for use in progressive discipline, should further misconduct occur.\u201d24 However, this wording does not specify that any misconduct must be treated as related, and therefore constitute a second offense, for purposes of applying progressive discipline. The Agency\u2019s assertion merely disagrees with the Arbitrator\u2019s interpretation of the 19 Id.", "hash": "351c86feb15e4356d8fd849e6d7465af", "id": 5}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-authority", "type": "clause", "offset": [46, 59]}, {"key": "the-agency", "type": "clause", "offset": [89, 99]}, {"key": "the-statute", "type": "definition", "offset": [133, 144]}, {"key": "exceptions-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [190, 203]}, {"key": "relating-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [212, 223]}], "samples": [{"hash": "iMwCFHo0uD9", "uri": "/contracts/iMwCFHo0uD9#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 16.6624429544, "published": true}], "snippet": "For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Authority lacks jurisdiction to review the Agency\u2019s exceptions. Under \u00a7 7122(a) of the Statute, the Authority lacks jurisdiction to resolve exceptions to awards \u201crelating to\u201d a matter described in \u00a7 7121(f) of the", "hash": "70ec4991153c801135b1f63b1e073163", "id": 6}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-award", "type": "clause", "offset": [3, 12]}, {"key": "contrary-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [20, 31]}, {"key": "the-statute", "type": "definition", "offset": [48, 59]}], "samples": [{"hash": "9VdnD1QSKUX", "uri": "/contracts/9VdnD1QSKUX#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 16.0, "published": true}], "snippet": "A. The award is not contrary to \u00a7 7121(c)(5) of the Statute", "hash": "8c84e7e797859f374b560cccf24e2ad4", "id": 7}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-award", "type": "clause", "offset": [3, 12]}, {"key": "contrary-to-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [20, 35]}, {"key": "the-statute", "type": "definition", "offset": [119, 130]}, {"key": "the-agency", "type": "clause", "offset": [139, 149]}, {"key": "prior-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [183, 191]}, {"key": "de-minimis", "type": "definition", "offset": [265, 275]}, {"key": "de-novo-review", "type": "definition", "offset": [448, 462]}, {"key": "the-arbitrator", "type": "clause", "offset": [497, 511]}, {"key": "legal-conclusions", "type": "clause", "offset": [514, 531]}, {"key": "applicable-standard", "type": "definition", "offset": [556, 575]}, {"key": "factual-findings", "type": "clause", "offset": [715, 731]}, {"key": "to-apply", "type": "clause", "offset": [766, 774]}, {"key": "burdens-of-proof", "type": "clause", "offset": [785, 801]}, {"key": "unfair-labor-practice", "type": "definition", "offset": [828, 849]}, {"key": "caribbean-region", "type": "definition", "offset": [884, 900]}, {"key": "a-dispute", "type": "definition", "offset": [955, 964]}, {"key": "bargaining-obligation", "type": "clause", "offset": [976, 997]}, {"key": "by-the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [1009, 1023]}, {"key": "the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [1090, 1103]}, {"key": "contract-interpretation", "type": "clause", "offset": [1124, 1147]}, {"key": "the-dispute", "type": "clause", "offset": [1528, 1539]}, {"key": "duty-to-bargain", "type": "clause", "offset": [1634, 1649]}, {"key": "a-change-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [1864, 1875]}, {"key": "agency-policies", "type": "clause", "offset": [1876, 1891]}, {"key": "the-position", "type": "clause", "offset": [1924, 1936]}, {"key": "control-room", "type": "clause", "offset": [1971, 1983]}, {"key": "in-addition", "type": "clause", "offset": [2004, 2015]}, {"key": "of-the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [2042, 2056]}, {"key": "relating-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2090, 2101]}, {"key": "to-negotiate", "type": "definition", "offset": [2216, 2228]}, {"key": "establishment-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2233, 2253]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [2273, 2281]}, {"key": "interpretation-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2308, 2325]}, {"key": "articles-2", "type": "clause", "offset": [2327, 2337]}, {"key": "violation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2732, 2748]}, {"key": "the-issues", "type": "clause", "offset": [2823, 2833]}, {"key": "statutory-claim", "type": "definition", "offset": [2893, 2908]}, {"key": "basis-for-finding", "type": "clause", "offset": [2921, 2938]}, {"key": "by-the-union", "type": "clause", "offset": [3071, 3083]}, {"key": "provide-a", "type": "definition", "offset": [3369, 3378]}, {"key": "fair-hearing", "type": "definition", "offset": [3379, 3391]}, {"key": "provide-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [3440, 3451]}, {"key": "unit-employees", "type": "definition", "offset": [3598, 3612]}, {"key": "on-the-ground", "type": "definition", "offset": [3664, 3677]}, {"key": "an-arbitrator", "type": "clause", "offset": [3773, 3786]}, {"key": "other-actions", "type": "clause", "offset": [3853, 3866]}, {"key": "a-party", "type": "clause", "offset": [3908, 3915]}, {"key": "to-discuss", "type": "definition", "offset": [4393, 4403]}, {"key": "offered-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [4438, 4448]}, {"key": "not-established", "type": "definition", "offset": [4763, 4778]}, {"key": "direct-relationship", "type": "clause", "offset": [4993, 5012]}, {"key": "traffic-control", "type": "clause", "offset": [5045, 5060]}, {"key": "to-establish", "type": "clause", "offset": [5218, 5230]}, {"key": "appealing-party", "type": "definition", "offset": [5272, 5287]}, {"key": "clearly-erroneous", "type": "definition", "offset": [5342, 5359]}, {"key": "the-authority-will", "type": "clause", "offset": [5496, 5514]}, {"key": "determination-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [5565, 5581]}, {"key": "at-arbitration", "type": "clause", "offset": [5627, 5641]}, {"key": "creation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [6346, 6361]}, {"key": "conditions-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [6401, 6418]}, {"key": "at-10", "type": "definition", "offset": [6511, 6516]}, {"key": "standard-of-review", "type": "clause", "offset": [6797, 6815]}, {"key": "federal-courts", "type": "definition", "offset": [6821, 6835]}, {"key": "arbitration-awards", "type": "clause", "offset": [6853, 6871]}, {"key": "private-sector", "type": "clause", "offset": [6879, 6893]}, {"key": "see-5", "type": "clause", "offset": [6895, 6900]}, {"key": "collective-bargaining-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [7090, 7121]}, {"key": "purposes-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [7316, 7331]}, {"key": "obligation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [7400, 7417]}], "samples": [{"hash": "chibVjBBvOZ", "uri": "/contracts/chibVjBBvOZ#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 21.1704312115, "published": true}], "snippet": "A. The award is not contrary to law. The Union argues that the award is contrary to \u00a7 7106 and \u00a7 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute because the Agency failed to bargain with the Union prior to implementing the Air Boss position, the impact of which was greater than de minimis. Exceptions at 6-7 (citing CBP, 64 FLRA at 994; Army, 38 FLRA at 661). (citing U.S. Customs Serv. v. FLRA, 43 F.3d 682, 686-87 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). In applying a standard of de novo review, the Authority determines whether the arbitrator\u2018s legal conclusions are consistent with the applicable standard of law. See NFFE, Local 1437, 53 FLRA 1703, 1710 (1998). In making that determination, the Authority defers to the arbitrator\u2018s underlying factual findings. See id. Arbitrators are required to apply statutory burdens of proof when resolving an alleged unfair labor practice (ULP). See, e.g., U.S. GSA, Ne. & Caribbean Region, N.Y.C., N.Y., 60 FLRA 864, 866 (2005). However, when a dispute involves a bargaining obligation as defined by the parties\u2018 agreement, \u2015\u2017the issue of whether the parties have complied with the agreement becomes a matter of contract interpretation for the [a]rbitrator.\u2018\u2016 U.S. Dep\u2019t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 65 FLRA 792, 795 (2011) (ICE) (quoting Broad. Bd. of Governors, Office of Cuba Broad., 64 FLRA 888, 891 (2010) (Cuba) (citation omitted)). In those circumstances, the Authority applies the deferential essence standard to the arbitrator\u2018s contract interpretation. Id. (citation omitted). The dispute before the Arbitrator did not involve a claim that the Agency failed to satisfy its statutory duty to bargain. Rather, the parties stipulated to issues concerning only the Agency\u2018s contractual duty to bargain: (1) \u2015Did the Agency violate Article[s 2 and 6 of the CBA], and the . . . MOU?\u2016; and (2) \u2015Did the Agency implement a change in Agency policies and practice when [it] assigned the position of \u2017Air Boss\u2018 to the [air-traffic-control room] . . . ?\u2016 Id. at 2. In addition, the Arbitrator\u2018s summary of the parties\u2018 positions includes no arguments relating to the Agency\u2018s statutory duty to bargain. See Award at 5 (describing Union\u2018s position that the Agency \u2015is obligated to negotiate the establishment of the Air Boss position, based on a logical application and interpretation of [Articles 2 and 6] and the [MOU]\u2016); id. at 6 (describing Agency\u2018s position that it did not violate Articles 2 and 6 of the CBA or the MOU). Further, the Arbitrator did not address any alleged statutory violations in reaching his legal conclusions. Id. at 7 (the \u2015MOU, and Articles 2 and 6 cannot in any way be interpreted to require mandatory bargaining); id. at 9 (the Arbitrator \u2015awards that there is no violation of the [CBA] or of the [MOU] in the establishment of the Air Boss position\u2016). As the issues before the Arbitrator were purely contractual, the Union\u2018s statutory claim provides no basis for finding the award contrary to law. See, e.g., ICE, 65 FLRA at 795; Cuba, 64 FLRA at 891. For the same reason, the Authority precedent cited by the Union \u2013 which involves the duty to bargain under the Statute \u2013 is inapposite and also provides no basis for finding the award contrary to law. See, e.g., ICE, 65 FLRA at 795; Cuba, 64 FLRA at 891. Accordingly, we deny the Union\u2018s contrary-to-law exception.\nB. The Arbitrator did not fail to provide a fair hearing. The Union argues that the Arbitrator failed to provide the Union a fair hearing because he \u2015makes no mention of the testimony or evidence provided by the Union\u2016 regarding the Air Boss position\u2018s impact on unit employees. Exceptions at 8. An award will be found deficient on the ground that the Arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing when the excepting party establishes that an arbitrator\u2018s refusal to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or other actions in conducting the proceeding, prejudiced a party so as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 1668, 50 FLRA 124, 126 (1995). That an arbitrator does not mention a particular evidentiary item in his or her award does not demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to consider it or failed to provide a fair hearing. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 3438, 65 FLRA 2, 3-4 (2010) (Local 3438); AFGE, Local 3615, 57 FLRA 19, 22 (2001) (Local 3615). The Union\u2018s exception challenges the Arbitrator\u2018s failure to discuss particular testimony and evidence offered by the Union. However, under the precedent set forth above, the Arbitrator\u2018s failure to mention particular testimony or evidence does not establish that the Arbitrator failed to consider it or failed to provide the Union a fair hearing. Local 3438, 65 FLRA at 4; Local 3615, 57 FLRA at 22. Accordingly, the Union has not established that the Arbitrator denied it a fair hearing, and we deny its fair-hearing exception.\nC. The award is not based on a nonfact. The Union asserts that the Arbitrator erred by finding that the Air Boss position has a direct relationship with the supervisors in the air-traffic control room and \u2015no[] . . . direct[-]line relationship in which Air Bosses actually are directing the work of [c]ontrollers.\u2016 Exceptions at 9 (quoting Award at 7). To establish that an award is based on a nonfact, the appealing party must show that a central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which the arbitrator would have reached a different result. See NFFE, Local 1984, 56 FLRA 38, 41 (2000) (Local 1984). However, the Authority will not find an award deficient based an arbitrator\u2018s determination of any factual matter that the parties disputed at arbitration. See id. The parties disputed the Air Boss position\u2018s duties, responsibilities, and authority at arbitration. See Award at 5-6; Exceptions, Attach. 3 at 1, 5; Opp\u2018n, Attach. 1 at 3-4. As the Authority will not find an award deficient based on an arbitrator\u2018s determination of any factual matter that the parties disputed below, the Union does not provide a basis for finding that the award is based on a nonfact. See Local 1984, 56 FLRA at 41. Accordingly, we deny the Union\u2018s nonfact exception.\nD. The award draws its essence from the CBA and the MOU. The Union asserts that the award fails to draw its essence from Articles 2 and 6 of the CBA and the MOU because the Arbitrator failed to find that the creation of the Air Boss position affected the working conditions of the air traffic controllers and that, therefore, the Agency was required to bargain. Exceptions at 10-12. In this regard, the Union asserts that the Arbitrator failed to interpret the CBA and MOU consistent with Authority precedent interpreting the statutory duty to bargain. Id. at 11-12. In reviewing an arbitrator\u2018s interpretation of a CBA, the Authority applies the deferential standard of review that federal courts use in reviewing arbitration awards in the private sector. See 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 7122(a)(2); AFGE, Council 220, 54 FLRA 156, 159 (1998). Under this standard, the Authority will find that an arbitration award is deficient as failing to draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement when the appealing party establishes that the award: (1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected with the wording and purposes of the collective bargaining agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator;", "hash": "ea0b20e1aac2cc64847e13d283535b8d", "id": 8}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-arbitrator", "type": "clause", "offset": [3, 17]}, {"key": "by-the-authority", "type": "clause", "offset": [80, 96]}, {"key": "conditions-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [170, 183]}, {"key": "subject-matter", "type": "clause", "offset": [290, 304]}, {"key": "a-dispute", "type": "definition", "offset": [308, 317]}, {"key": "the-agency", "type": "clause", "offset": [447, 457]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [602, 617]}, {"key": "imposition-of-discipline", "type": "clause", "offset": [622, 646]}, {"key": "the-reference-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [852, 868]}, {"key": "the-grievance", "type": "clause", "offset": [897, 910]}, {"key": "procedural-arbitrability", "type": "clause", "offset": [945, 969]}, {"key": "on-the-merits", "type": "definition", "offset": [1068, 1081]}, {"key": "subject-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [1184, 1194]}, {"key": "parties-are", "type": "clause", "offset": [1365, 1376]}, {"key": "to-submit", "type": "definition", "offset": [1387, 1396]}, {"key": "to-arbitration", "type": "clause", "offset": [1429, 1443]}, {"key": "the-dispute", "type": "clause", "offset": [1486, 1497]}, {"key": "final-disposition", "type": "definition", "offset": [1514, 1531]}, {"key": "authority-claim", "type": "definition", "offset": [1718, 1733]}, {"key": "determine-whether", "type": "clause", "offset": [1904, 1921]}, {"key": "basis-for-finding", "type": "clause", "offset": [2128, 2145]}, {"key": "the-determination", "type": "clause", "offset": [2146, 2163]}, {"key": "reinstatement-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2282, 2298]}], "samples": [{"hash": "i9hUuoPTuWr", "uri": "/contracts/i9hUuoPTuWr#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet": "A. The Arbitrator\u2019s arbitrability determination is not deficient. As recognized by the Authority, procedural arbi- trability involves questions of whether the procedural conditions to arbitrability have been met or excused, while substantive arbitrability involves questions of whether the subject matter of a dispute is arbitrable. See, e.g., AFGE Nat\u2019l Border Patrol Council, Local 1929, 63 FLRA 465, 467 (2009). Here, the Arbitrator found, and the Agency does not dispute, that both the 2003 and 2006 agreements cover the subject matter that was grieved and set forth the same substantive standards with respect to the imposition of discipline. Conse- quently, the exceptions do not challenge a substantive arbitrability determination. Instead, the exceptions challenge the Arbitrator\u2019s arbitrability determination rejecting the Agency\u2019s claim that the reference to the 2003 agreement rendered the grievance procedurally defective. This is a procedural arbitrability determina- tion because it finds that the grievance met the proce- dural conditions to resolution on the merits. See id. As a procedural arbitrability determination, the Arbitrator\u2019s determination is generally not subject to challenge. E.g., AFGE Local 104, 61 FLRA 681, 682 (2006); see also \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 & Sons, Inc. \u2587. \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587.\u2587. \u2587\u2587\u2587, 557 (1964) (\u201cOnce it is determined . . . that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a dispute to arbitration, \u2018procedural\u2019 questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator.\u201d). One of the grounds on which a procedural arbitrability determination is subject to challenge is exceeded authority, but only insofar as the exceeded-authority claim \u201cdo[es] not directly chal- lenge the [arbitrability] determination itself.\u201d AFGE Local 104, 61 FLRA at 683. Here, the parties specifi- cally authorized the Arbitrator to determine whether the grievance was arbitrable, and the Agency makes no exceeded-authority arguments that do not directly chal- lenge the Arbitrator\u2019s arbitrability determination itself. Consequently, the Agency provides no basis for finding the determination deficient. See id. Accordingly, we deny the Agency\u2019s exception.\nB. The Arbitrator exceeded her authority in directing reinstatement of the disputed duties.", "hash": "3205a262e031a0580e15c9187b7c9136", "id": 9}, {"size": 1, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-right", "type": "clause", "offset": [119, 128]}, {"key": "labor-organizations", "type": "clause", "offset": [132, 151]}, {"key": "labor-disputes", "type": "definition", "offset": [212, 226]}, {"key": "employers-and-others", "type": "clause", "offset": [256, 276]}, {"key": "trades-council", "type": "definition", "offset": [351, 365]}, {"key": "the-parties", "type": "definition", "offset": [399, 410]}, {"key": "primary-employer", "type": "clause", "offset": [454, 470]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [664, 672]}, {"key": "right-of-control", "type": "definition", "offset": [677, 693]}, {"key": "the-board", "type": "clause", "offset": [699, 708]}, {"key": "applies-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [709, 719]}, {"key": "in-cases-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [775, 786]}, {"key": "the-respondents", "type": "clause", "offset": [861, 876]}, {"key": "secondary-boycott", "type": "definition", "offset": [914, 931]}, {"key": "action-against", "type": "clause", "offset": [1031, 1045]}, {"key": "section-1", "type": "definition", "offset": [1354, 1363]}, {"key": "contract-document", "type": "definition", "offset": [1396, 1413]}, {"key": "i-disagree", "type": "definition", "offset": [1576, 1586]}], "samples": [{"hash": "lSftlx1jXx8", "uri": "/contracts/lSftlx1jXx8#analysis-and-conclusions", "label": "Collective Bargaining Agreement", "score": 29.8911247682, "published": true}], "snippet": "1. The 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) allegations Section 8(b)(4)(B) reflects \u201cthe dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own.\u201d NLRB v. Denver Building & Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951). Here, the parties sharply disagree about the identity of the primary employer (or \u201coffending\u201d) employer and the others that can be characterized as \u201cunoffending\u201d employer that we characterize these days as neutrals. The AGC contends that the Port is the primary employer based on the right of control test the Board applies to distin- guish primary employers from neutral employers in cases of this type. Accordingly, the AGC argues that the various forms of pressure the Respondents asserted against others violated the secondary boycott proscriptions in Section 8(b)(4)(B). Re- spondents argue that Section 8(b)(4)(B) protects economic action against parties who are not really \u201cneutral\u201d or who are not \u201cwholly uncon-cerned\u201d in a labor dispute such as the one here. Respondents assert that neither ICTSI nor the carriers can be characterized as neutral or wholly unconcerned here because they are bound by the coastwise PCLCD that obligates them to honor the section 1 jurisdictional mandates of that contract document as interpreted in CLRC-012-2012 and CLRC-013- 2012 and/or authorized arbitrators. As I find that CLRC-012- 2012 and CLRC-013-2012 suffer from a fundamental flaw, I disagree with Respondents\u2019 contentions. In Plumbers Local 438 (\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 Sons, Inc.), 201 NLRB 59, 63 (1973), enfd. 490 F.2d 323 (4th Cir. 1973), the Board reiterated its analytical approach to cases of this kind:", "hash": "ff0995d3830229d967afd1179d351ab6", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "CmESW2oVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3Rzcj0LEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IiFhbmFseXNpcy1hbmQtY29uY2x1c2lvbnMjMDAwMDAwMGEMogECZW4YACAA", "clause": {"size": 17, "children": [["", ""], ["appropriate-unit-criteria", "Appropriate Unit Criteria"]], "title": "Analysis and Conclusions", "parents": [["order", "Order"], ["alleged-unfair-labor-practices", "Alleged Unfair Labor Practices"]], "id": "analysis-and-conclusions", "related": [["investment-analysis-and-implementation", "Investment Analysis and Implementation", "Investment Analysis and Implementation"], ["investment-analysis-and-commentary", "Investment Analysis and Commentary", "Investment Analysis and Commentary"], ["quantitative-analysis", "Quantitative Analysis", "Quantitative Analysis"], ["analysis", "Analysis", "Analysis"], ["financial-conditions", "Financial Conditions", "Financial Conditions"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2025-07-07T12:36:17+00:00"}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}