Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916 (Authority decision, December 14, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award sustaining a reprimand for soliciting union membership during work time. 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

Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center reprimanded an employee for disrupting work by soliciting union membership during working hours. An arbitrator found the evidence supported the reprimand and denied the grievance. The union argued that the reprimand violated the agency's rules and labor agreement and that the arbitrator had misread the evidence. The Authority held that disagreement with the arbitrator's evaluation of the record did not establish a defect in the award. It denied the exceptions, leaving the reprimand in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; reprimand sustained.
• Key point: Reweighing the evidence on work time solicitation was not a basis for setting aside the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p482 ]

30:0482(61)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 61
30 FLRA 482

14 DEC 1987

OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 916, AFL-CIO

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1389

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John A. Bailey, which sustained a reprimand of the grievant for disrupting work. The exceptions were 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, alleging that the award is contrary to the evidence and testimony presented. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient as alleged. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was reprimanded for having disrupted work by soliciting union membership during working hours. The grievant was not a union official at the time of the incident. The parties submitted to arbitration the question of whether the reprimand was for just cause and whether it violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Arbitrator determined that the evidence supported the conclusion that the grievant wrongfully solicited union membership during work time. He denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union argues that the Arbitrator erred in not finding that the Activity violated its own regulations and the parties' agreement by reprimanding the grievant and that the award is contrary to the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing.

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 other grounds similar to those applied by the Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for example, Oklahoma Air Logistic Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employee, Local 916, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA No. 5 (1987) (exceptions which constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of an 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 o. 64 (1987) (exceptions disagreeing with an arbitrator's evaluation of evidence and testimony provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

IV. Decision

For the above reasons, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C.. December 14. 1987

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY