Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Authority decision, April 30, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union’s exception to an arbitration award rejecting an overtime distribution grievance. 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

A shipyard employee claimed he had not received a fair share of overtime and sought backpay. An arbitrator found that the shipyard adequately explained the assignments and had not violated the labor agreement. He declined to admit a union exhibit offered during closing argument because he found it would not help resolve the facts. The Authority held that the union’s challenge to that evidentiary ruling did not show a deficient award and denied its exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union’s exception denied; grievance denial stands.
• Key point: An objection to exclusion of a late exhibit did not establish that the union lacked a fair hearing.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v26 p799 ]

26:0799(94)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

26 FLRA No. 94

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
Activity

and

TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1327

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

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

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant contended that he was improperly denied a fair and equitable share of overtime work and that a "gross imbalance" existed in the distribution of overtime. The grievant sought backpay for this alleged violation of the parties' agreement.

Both parties had submitted written data and testimony to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator observed that the data on the grievant's overtime submitted by the Union and by the Activity was identical, and found that the parties were using the same data to arrive at differing conclusions. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the Activity had provided an adequate explanation regarding the assignment of overtime and that the Activity had not violated the parties' agreement regarding assignment of overtime to the grievant. In so ruling, the Arbitrator rejected the Union's request to introduce an exhibit while it was making its closing statement. The Arbitrator stated that the exhibit "cannot throw any light upon the facts of the instant case." Arbitrator's Award at 4.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Abritrator's decision not to admit the Union's exhibit was abritrary and capricious.

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) (a union's contentions which merely constitute disagreement with the arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence provide no basis for finding an award deficient); and Mid-America Program Service Center, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and Local No. 1336, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA 264 (1981) (the assertion that the arbitrator would not allow a party to present all evidence is insufficient to show that the party had an inadequate opportunity for the presentation of evidence or that the party was denied a fair hearing). Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY