National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-2 and Department of the Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Newport News, Virginia (Authority decision, November 30, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award rejecting its grievance. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), an order involving an arbitral award is generally excluded from judicial review unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The union challenged the presence of a civilian personnel specialist alongside a supervisor at the first step of an employee grievance. An arbitrator found that neither the labor agreement nor past practice barred that attendance and denied the grievance. The union argued that the arbitrator misread the agreement and overlooked supporting testimony. The Authority found those arguments did not establish a legal or comparable defect in the award. It denied the union's exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Review of an arbitration award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; grievance denial stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's contract interpretation or weighing of testimony did not justify setting aside the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p344 ]

30:0344(42)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 42
30 FLRA 344

30 NOV 1987

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R4-2

Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING,
CONVERSION AND REPAIR
NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA

Activity

Case No. 0-AR-1384

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Leroy S. Merrifield, 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. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The issue before the Arbitrator was whether the Activity violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by having a representative of the Civilian Personnel Office present with the grievant's immediate supervisor at a meeting at the first step of a grievance. The Union contended that under the parties' negotiated grievance procedures the only persons who are permitted to be present at first-step meetings are the immediate supervisor, the employee and the employee's Union representative. The union maintained that the supervisor's insistence that the personnel specialist be present at the meeting in question was violative of the agreement. The Union also argued that until the Activity's violation of the agreement, the prevailing practice was that the only management representative present at first-step proceedings was the immediate supervisor. The Activity disagreed with the Union's position. The Arbitrator determined that neither the parties' agreement nor past practice precluded a supervisor from having someone from the personnel office present at a first-step meeting. The Arbitrator concluded that the Activity did not violate the parties' agreement and denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

In its exceptions, the Union contends that the Arbitrator erred in concluding that the Activity did not violate the parties' agreement. The Union also argues that an established past practice limits management's representation at the first step of the grievance procedure to the immediate supervisor, and that the Arbitrator erred in ignoring testimony supporting this argument.

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. Specifically, the Union has failed to establish that the award is contrary to any law, rule or regulation; or that the award is deficient on any other ground similar to those applied by the Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for example, Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA No. 5 (1987) (exceptions which constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and reasoning and conclusions and an attempt to relitigate the merits of a grievance before the Authority provide no basis for finding an award deficient); Veterans Administration Medical Center, Kansas city, Missouri, and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2663, 29 FLRA No. 64 (1987) (exceptions disagreeing with an arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence and testimony, especially the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

The Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued Washington, D.C.,November 30, 1987

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY