U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3258 (Authority decision, August 17, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies HUD's exceptions to an arbitration award reducing how long an employee's reprimand remains in his personnel file. 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

HUD reprimanded an employee for returning about an hour and a half late from lunch and planned to keep the letter in his personnel file for three years. The union accepted the reprimand but challenged its duration. An arbitrator found that HUD had improperly relied on an earlier disciplinary letter that should have been removed and had treated the employee unequally. He shortened the filing period to one year. The Authority rejected HUD's claim that the award violated its right to discipline or the labor agreement, finding no statutory basis to set the award aside.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a); management's discipline right under § 7106(a)(2)(A).
• Outcome: HUD's exceptions denied; one-year filing period stands.
• Key point: HUD did not establish that reducing the reprimand's filing period made the arbitration award deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v28 p613]
28:0613(77)
AR
The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA NO. 77

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 3258

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1356

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Michael W. Stutz filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. 1

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Agency issued a letter of reprimand to the grievant because he was absent from work for about 1 1/2 hours beyond his lunch break. The Agency determined that the reprimand should remain in the grievant's personnel file for 3 years. The Union did not dispute the appropriateness of the reprimand, but filed a grievance contesting the period of time that the reprimand should remain in the grievant's personnel file. The matter was submitted to arbitration.

The parties submitted the following issue to the Arbitrator: "Whether or not the Employer violated the collective bargaining agreement and/or the HUD Handbook 752.2 when it placed the July 3, 1986 official letter of reprimand in the grievant's personnel file for a period of three (3) years?" The Arbitrator determined that the 3-year reprimand (1) had been imposed with improper reliance on a prior disciplinary letter which should have been removed from the grievant's personnel file; and (2) constituted unequal treatment of the grievant. As his award, the Arbitrator concluded that the Agency had violated the parties' agreement when it placed the letter of reprimand in the grievant's personnel file for a period of 3 years, and he reduced to 1 year the length of time the letter of reprimand should remain in the grievant's personnel file.

III. Discussion

The Agency contends that the Arbitrator's award is contrary to the parties' agreement and, by requiring the Agency to remove the reprimand from the grievant's official personnel file after 1 year, violates management's right to discipline employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. According to the Agency, the Arbitrator incorrectly determined that the penalty was not just the letter of reprimand but also included the length of time it was to remain in the employee's file.

We conclude that the Agency 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, Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2052, Petersburg, Virginia, 13 FLRA 108 (1983) (exceptions that constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions and interpretation of a negotiated agreement provide no basis for finding an award deficient). Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., August 17, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The Agency also requested a stay of
the award when it filed its exceptions to the award with the Authority on April 23, 1987. Effective December 31, 1986, the Authority's Regulations were revised to revoke those portions pertaining to the filing of requests for stays of arbitration awards (51 Fed. Reg. 45754). Accordingly, no action on the stay request was taken.