Oklahoma City Air Logistics Command, Tinker Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916 (Authority decision, August 31, 1987)
Tinker overtime medical information (FLRA 0-AR-1385): Privacy exception denied
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Authority precedent from 1987, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies AFGE Local 916's exception to an arbitrator's award upholding a supervisor's request for medical information supporting an employee's exemption from mandatory overtime. 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
An employee at Tinker Air Force Base sought exemption from mandatory overtime, and his supervisor requested additional information from his physician. An arbitrator found the request reasonable under personnel and Air Force regulations and rejected the union's privacy objection. AFGE Local 916 argued that sending medical records to a nonmedical supervisor violated the Privacy Act. The Authority held that the union had not shown the award was contrary to law or otherwise deficient and denied the exception.
Decision snapshot
- Authority: Exceptions to arbitration awards under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
- Outcome: Union exception denied; arbitrator's denial of the grievance stands.
- Key point: The union's privacy argument did not establish a legal defect in the arbitrator's award.
Full text (FLRA public release)
[ v28 p792 ]
28:0792(103)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA NO. 103
OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS
COMMAND, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE,
OKLAHOMA
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 916, AFL-CIO
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1385
DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator J.C. Fogelberg 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
A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration disputing the request of the grievant's supervisor that the grievant submit additional medical information to her from his physician to support his being exempted from mandatory overtime. The Arbitrator determined that management was authorized under Office of Personnel Management regulations and Air Force regulations to request medical information for such a purpose and that the request in this case was reasonable. He also rejected the Union's argument that the submission of the medical information to the grievant's supervisor violated the Privacy Act and medical ethics regarding confidentiality. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
III. Discussion
The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator permitted the unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the grievant by upholding the submission of the requested medical records to the grievant's supervisor who is not a medical professional. Specifically, the Union argues that the award is contrary to the Privacy Act and implementing regulations pertaining to disclosure of medical records.
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, 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 relations cases. See, for example, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, 12 FLRA 616 (1983) (exception contending that the award was contrary to law provided no basis for finding that the award was deficient; the union was attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and the exception constituted disagreement with the arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions).
Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C. August 31, 1987.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace