Warner Robins Air Logistics Center and AFGE Local 987 (Authority decision, July 23, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award that upheld 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 employee repairing an airplane aileron at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center was reprimanded after a quality audit found that required procedures had not been followed. An arbitrator found that she was responsible for the discrepancies and had not been singled out for an audit, so he upheld the reprimand. AFGE Local 987 argued that other employees had received lighter discipline for similar conduct and that the award conflicted with other arbitration awards. The Authority held that those arguments did not establish a legal defect in the award under its arbitration-review statute and denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Review of arbitration awards under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exception denied; reprimand award remains in place.
• Key point: Different outcomes in earlier arbitration cases did not establish a statutory defect in this award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v28 p107 ]
28:0107(21)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA NO. 21

WARNER ROBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION 987

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1345

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Roger C. Williams 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

The grievance in this case concerned the reprimand of the grievant for failure to follow proper procedures while she was repairing an airplane aileron. The reprimand was based on the findings of a quality audit conducted for the purpose of monitoring compliance with prescribed procedures' and standards. The grievant denied that she was responsible for the discrepancies noted in the audit and contended that she was singled out for assignment to a job that would be audited.

The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the reprimand was for just cause, as required under the collective bargaining agreement. The Arbitrator found that a preponderance of the evidence showed that the grievant was responsible for the discrepancies for which she was reprimanded and that she was not singled out for an assignment which management knew would be audited. The Arbitrator ruled that the reprimand was for just cause and was an appropriate penalty for the offense. He therefore denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

In its exception the Union contends that the award is contrary to law because the Arbitrator did not consider the appropriateness of the penalty imposed on the grievant in relation to penalties imposed on other employees for similar offenses and because the penalty shows a disparity in penalty for like offenses. The Union cites other arbitration awards involving similar offenses at the Activity which reduced reprimands to lesser penalties, and contends that the Arbitrator's award in this case is inconsistent with those awards. The Union maintains that the appropriate penalty in this case would have been an oral admonishment.

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 it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL - CIO and Social Security Administration, Headquarters Bureaus and Offices, 4 FLRA 112, 115 (1980) (allegations that an award is inconsistent with previous arbitration awards do not present a basis for finding an award deficient under the Statute). Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., July 23, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY