AFGE Local 997 and Maxwell Air Force Base (Authority decision, May 29, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award rejecting its grievance over the transfer of laundry work to federal prison inmates. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), Authority orders involving arbitral awards generally are excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

Maxwell Air Force Base reduced its laundry staff and transferred laundry work to inmates at a federal prison camp on the base. AFGE Local 997 argued that the work belonged to bargaining unit employees. The arbitrator denied the grievance and urged efforts to place affected employees in other jobs, with training where needed. The union claimed that the arbitrator had failed to address the issue before him. The Authority found that this challenge did not establish a legal defect in the award and denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; grievance denial stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's reasoning did not show that the award was deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p389 ]

27:0389(53)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 53

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 997, AFL-CIO
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
Union

and

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA
Agency

Case No. 0-AR-1295

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Wanza C. Johnson filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A Federal prison camp and a laundry are located at Maxwell Air Force Base. The Agency conducted a reduction in force of laundry service employees and transferred the work to Federal prison inmates. The Union filed a grievance contending that the Agency did not have a right to assign the work to the prison inmates and that the work should be performed by bargaining unit employees. The Agency stated that it was conducting the reduction in force for economic reasons and that the unit employees had the right to transfer into qualified positions whenever vacancies occur.

The Arbitrator stated the issue as follows: "Did the Air Force Base displace regular Employees, under the law, and transfer work to another agency, and if so what is the remedy?" The Arbitrator denied the Union's grievance. The Arbitrator stated that all efforts should be made for the possible placement in other available jobs of employees involved in the reduction in force, and if employees are not qualified, an expedited training program should be conducted.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator did not address the issue before him. We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. See, for example, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Depot Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2501, 13 FLRA 5 (1983) (a union's contention that an arbitrator did not address the issue in the case essentially constitutes disagreement with the arbitrator's reasoning and provides no basis for finding an award deficient). Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C. May 29, 1987.

/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY