VA Medical Center, Kansas City and AFGE Local 2663 (Authority decision, June 23, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award finding that the Kansas City VA medical center provided its union president reasonable official time. 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

AFGE Local 2663 grieved the Kansas City VA medical center's amount of official time for its union president during a one month period in 1986. The arbitrator found that the center had allowed a reasonable amount under the parties' local agreement and denied the grievance. The union challenged the award, alleging bias and errors in the arbitrator's reasoning and scope. The Authority found no statutory ground to set it aside and denied the union's exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; official time grievance denial stands.
• Key point: The union's disagreement with the arbitrator's reading of the official time agreement did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p486 ]

27:0486(69)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 69

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER, KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 2663
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1313

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Russell C. Neas 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 Activity filed an opposition. /*/

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The parties framed the following issue for submission to the Arbitrator:

Did the (Activity) fail to allow a reasonable amount of time to the Union President . . . during the period January 27, 1986, to February 25, 1986, as required by Article X of the local agreement between the Agency and Union dated October 30, 1972? If so, what shall be the remedy?

The Arbitrator found that the Activity had not failed to allow a reasonable amount of official time as required by the agreement and therefore denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union has filed exceptions disputing the Arbitrator's denial of the grievance. The Union contends, among other things, that the Arbitrator was biased, that he based his award on a "false premise," and that he did not confine his award to the time frame in the stipulated issue.

IV. Conclusion

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 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 cases. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, New York-New Jersey Council of District Office Locals, Social Security Administration and Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration District Office Operations, 7 FLRA 413 (1981) (various assertions as to why the award interpreting an official time provision of an agreement was deficient were determined to constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement and provided no basis for finding the award deficient). Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 23, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

(*) In its opposition the Activity contends that the Union's exceptions should be dismissed as procedurally deficient. We find that the exceptions are not procedurally deficient and reject the Activity's contention.