The union is not a party to the MOA or a party to a collective agreement with the AFMC. Undisputed exposures show that the Union has asked the FMCS to designate P.M. We conclude that if the arbitrator had understood that the MOA was inapplicable by the Union, he would not have upheld the remedy for enforcement of the MOA. Consequently, the central finding of fact underlying its distinction is clearly erroneous, but for which it reached a different conclusion. See z.B. United States Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., 18 FLRA 374, 375-76 (1985) (Arbitration award for the application of an agreement that does not apply to the respondent because it had expired and was based on a non-fact). There is nothing in the recordings to indicate that the arbitrator`s findings were challenged below.. . . .
Please follow and like us: