Air Force Logistics Command and American Federation of Government Employees, Council 214, AFLC Locals (Authority decision, May 14, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union’s exceptions to an arbitration award upholding an employee reprimand. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally 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

An arbitrator found that an Air Force Logistics Command employee used a phone after being told not to do so and upheld a reprimand for insubordination. The union argued that the employee’s right to representation had been violated at the meeting. The arbitrator concluded that the representation issue did not excuse the employee’s conduct. The Authority found no basis to set aside the award and denied the union’s exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union’s exceptions denied; reprimand award stands.
• Key point: The representation argument did not establish a statutory defect in the arbitrator’s just-cause finding.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p36 ]

27:0036(8)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 8

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 214
AFLC LOCALS
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1296

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award or Arbitrator Jack Clarke 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.

The Arbitrator determined that the issue to be resolved was whether the reprimand was for just cause. The Arbitrator found that the grievant's use of the phone after being told not to do so constituted insubordinate conduct. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's arguments that the Activity denied the grievant's right to representation at the meeting in violation of law and the parties' collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, that the reprimand for her conduct at the meeting was not for just cause. The Arbitrator determined that the grievant's right to representation did not excuse or justify her insubordinate conduct. The Arbitrator concluded that the reprimand was for just cause. Consequently, he denied the grievance.

III. Exceptions

In its exceptions, the Union repeats the arguments that it made before the Arbitrator that the Activity violated the grievant's right to representation under law and the parties' agreement. The Union contends that the Arbitrator erred in finding otherwise.

IV. Decision

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, Local 1919, American Federation of Government Employees and Veterans Administration National Cemetery, Farmingdale, Long Island, New York, 12 FLRA 605 (1983) (where the Authority found that an exception failed to establish that the arbitrator was required to decide as a matter of law that a disciplinary action was not for good and sufficient cause, and that another exception, which constituted nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence, provided no basis for finding the award deficient under the Statute); Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2052, Petersburg, Virginia, 13 FLRA No. 108 (1983) (where the Authority found that the exceptions were an attempt to relitigate the merits of the dispute; constituted nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact, his reasoning and conclusions based on evidence and testimony, and his interpretation and application of the parties' collective bargaining agreement; and, therefore, that the exceptions provided no basis for finding the award deficient).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., May 14, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY