AFGE Local 1815 and U.S. Army Safety Center (Authority decision, December 23, 1981)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Authority involving an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to such an order unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

An Army Safety Center employee sought overtime for travel to Korea to investigate an aircraft accident. The arbitrator denied the grievance after finding the travel was administratively scheduled and controlled and was not unusually arduous. The union argued that the accident itself could not be scheduled, but the Authority found that this did not show the award conflicted with the travel-pay regulation. It denied the exception and left the award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; travel-overtime grievance remained denied.
• Key point: The arbitrator's finding that the travel was administratively controlled was not shown contrary to regulation.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v07 p421 ]

07:0421(62)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

7 FLRA No. 62

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL NO. 1815
Union

and

UNITED STATES ARMY
SAFETY CENTER, FORT
RUCKER, ALABAMA
Activity

Case No. 0-AR-129

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR SHERMAN DALLAS FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) /1/
AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART
2425). THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.

ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN THE
GRIEVANT WAS DENIED OVERTIME PAY FOR REQUIRED TRAVEL TIME IN EXCESS OF
THE NORMAL SCHEDULED WORKDAY. THE TRAVEL IN THIS CASE INVOLVED AIR
TRAVEL TO AND FROM KOREA TO INVESTIGATE AND AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT. WHEN THE
PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, IT WAS SUBMITTED TO
ARBITRATION.

THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THE REGULATION RELEVANT TO DISPOSITION OF THE
GRIEVANCE TO BE 5 CFR 550.112(E) WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:

TIME IN TRAVEL STATUS. TIME IN TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL
DUTY-STATION OF AN

EMPLOYEE IS DEEMED EMPLOYMENT ONLY WHEN:

. . . .

(2) THE TRAVEL . . . (III) IS CARRIED OUT UNDER SUCH ARDUOUS AND
UNUSUAL CONDITIONS THAT

THE TRAVEL IS INSEPARABLE FROM WORK, OR (IV) RESULTS FROM AN EVENT
WHICH COULD NOT BE

SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

IN APPLYING THIS REGULATION TO THE MATTER BEFORE HIM, THE ARBITRATOR
HELD THAT THE UNION HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDITIONS
OF THE TRAVEL WERE EITHER ARDUOUS OR UNUSUAL. THE ARBITRATOR FURTHER
FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL TRAVEL IN THIS CASE WAS "INDEED SCHEDULED AND
CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY." CONCLUDING THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DID
NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 550.112(E), THE ARBITRATOR DENIED
THE GRIEVANCE.

IN ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR "ERRONEOUSLY
MISINTERPRETED" SECTION 550.112(E)(2)(IV). THE UNION ARGUES THAT THE
"EVENT" WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY WAS
THE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT THAT NECESSITATED THE GRIEVANT'S TRAVEL. THE
UNION ADDITIONALLY ASSERTS THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE
GRIEVANT'S TRAVEL TIME SINCE IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABLE AIRLINE
SCHEDULE. THUS, THE UNION CONCLUDES THAT ANY EVENT WHICH CANNOT BE
CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY MUST RECEIVE COMPENSATION.

THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE UNION HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS CONTRARY TO REGULATION. THE ARBITRATOR FOUND,
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BEFORE HIM, THAT IT WAS
ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED WHICH ACCIDENTS WOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY A
TEAM FROM THE ACTIVITY AS OPPOSED TO AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FIELD
OFFICE. THEREFORE, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT, WHEN SUCH A TEAM WAS
DISPATCHED, THE TRAVEL WAS SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL. NOTHING
IN THE UNION'S EXCEPTION ESTABLISHES THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CONTRARY TO
THE APPLICABLE REGULATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES
NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) AND
SECTION 2425.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 23, 1981

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES:

(A) EITHER PARTY TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY FILE WITH THE
AUTHORITY AN EXCEPTION

TO ANY ARBITRATOR'S AWARD PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATION (OTHER THAN AN
AWARD RELATING TO A

MATTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7121(F) OF THIS TITLE). IF UPON REVIEW
THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT

THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT--

(1) BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION; OR

(2) ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN
PRIVATE SECTOR

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS;

THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT

CONSIDERS NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, OR
REGULATIONS.