The Agency argues that the award does not derive its essence from the agreement, as section 18 gives it broad powers to award and reassign work without triggering a separate termination and negotiation obligation.  The Agency submits that the award does not derive its essence from the agreement of the parties. In particular, the arbitral award is not a plausible interpretation and shows a clear disregard for the clear meaning of article 18.  And if we add that the union is not in the institution either now, I am sure that we will get there, it makes it much more difficult to meet an employee, to react to the distance, the great upheaval of his life. That is what we want to see in the agreement. We want to see procedures that allow workers to meet with a union, to give them time to do so, so when signing, Director Samuels said: This collective agreement belongs to all of us who work for the office. It took us many years to grow, but we persevered and in the end we produced something we can all be proud of. CPL National President Young said, “This is an important milestone for all of us who have been prepared for a long time. Since the parties have reached an agreement on how and when management would exercise its right to work assignment, the implementation of these procedures and the resulting effects do not constitute an additional obligation to negotiate. Article 18 therefore covers and anticipates the challenges for all the specific outcomes of the allocation process.   The Authority will find that an arbitral award is deficient because it does not derive its essence from a collective agreement if the excluded party proves that the award: (1) cannot be rationally derived from the agreement; (2) is fundamentally unfounded and therefore bears no relation to the wording and objectives of the agreement that the breach of trust in the arbitrator`s obligation is expressed; (3) does not constitute a plausible interpretation of the Agreement; or (4) demonstrates a manifest breach of the Agreement.
Library of Cong., 60 FLRA 715, 717 (2005) (citing the United States) DOL, OSHA, 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990)); see also FCI Miami, 71 FLRA, p. 661 (finding that an arbitral award requiring the Agency to negotiate with non-custodial staff before filing guard posts could not derive its essence from the clear wording of section 18, which gives the Agency broad discretion in the assignment and reassignment of staff).  Although the 2014-2017 CBA is a new agreement, the wording of Article 18(p) is essentially the same as that analysed in BP I and BP II. Compare the exceptions, add them. C, 2014-2017 Framework Agreement at 46 (“[W]in Management states that it is necessary to pay overtime for positions/tasks normally occupied by collective bargaining employees, qualified employees of the collective bargaining unit receive an initial consideration for these overtime assignments, which are divided and alternated equally among employees in the bargaining unit.”), with the U.S. Department of Justice, Fed. BOP, Fed. Corr. Complex, Coleman, Fla., 63 FLRA 191, 192 (2009) (“If management determines that it is necessary to pay overtime for positions or assignments normally occupied by bargaining unit employees, qualified bargaining unit employees will receive initial consideration for such overtime assignments, which will be divided and alternated equitably among bargaining unit employees.”) (Emphasis added). Notwithstanding the application of these provisions clearly formulated by the arbitrator, the majority authorizes the arbitral award because the arbitrator`s previous practice has inappropriately altered the “clear and unambiguous language of Article 18” of the parties` agreement.6 However, like their decision in the Miami BOP, the majority does not identify a single “clear and unambiguous” term in Article 18, to support this conclusion.   Florence, 70 FLRA to 749 (citing BOP II, 875 F.3d to 676); see also FCI Miami, 71 FLRA, pp. 661-662 (the conclusion of an arbitral award preventing the Agency from reassigning employees in order to avoid overtime pay did not go to the heart of Article 18 of the parties` agreement).
 Exceptions to 7-8. In its exceptions, the Agency also mentions that the price violates BP I and BOP II, exceptions to 5 n.3, and that it is not obliged to negotiate “working conditions”, i.e. 4 n.2. See U.S. DHS, U.S. CBP, El Paso, Tex., 70 FLRA 501, 503 (2018) (“Working Conditions” and “Terms of Employment” are not synonymous). Since we set aside the arbitral award for failing to remove its essential element of the agreement, we do not deal with the agency`s other exceptions. See U.S.
DOD, Def. Logistics Agency Aviation, Richmond, Va., 70 FLRA 206, 207 (2017) (DOD) (cancellation of the award due to exceeding authority made it unnecessary to review the remaining exemptions). In the U.S. Small Business Administration case, the agency ruled that “arbitrators should not look beyond a collective agreement — for irrelevant considerations such as past practice — to change the clear and unambiguous terms of an agreement.”  As explained in more detail below, we consider Article 18 to be clear and unambiguous. As a result, the arbitrator erred in looking beyond section 18 at the parties` “past practice” and finding that the agency violated the parties` agreement when it began assigning supervisory authorities to vacant positions in order to avoid paying overtime without notifying the union and giving the union the opportunity to bargain. The arbitrator noted that, in the past, the agency has created an outsourcing practice to bargaining unit employees to cover free shifts, and that the agency has changed this practice by assigning vacancies to supervisors to avoid paying overtime to bargaining unit employees […].