Tinker Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916 (Authority decision, September 29, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration remedy for overtime assigned out of roster order. 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

A Tinker Air Force Base supervisor assigned 18 overtime hours without following the contract roster. The arbitrator found that two employees should have received those hours and ordered make-whole relief of 10 hours for one and eight for the other. The union argued that each employee should receive 18 hours instead. The Authority found no legal or other recognized defect in the arbitrator's remedy and denied the union's exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; 10-hour and eight-hour remedies left in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with how the arbitrator divided the missed overtime did not show the award was deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p215 ]
29:0215(18)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 18

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 916

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1401

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator J. Earl 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. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exception is denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A supervisor failed to use the overtime roster as required by the parties' agreement and assigned 18 hours of overtime to two employees out of sequence. The issue before the Arbitrator was whether two grievants who had been on the overtime roster were eligible for a remedy as a result of the Activity's improper distribution of overtime, and if so, what should the remedy be. After considering the parties' agreement and examining the overtime records for several previous months, the Arbitrator concluded that it was reasonable to assume that one grievant would have been called for 10 hours of overtime and the other grievant would have been called for 8 hours of overtime. As his award, the Arbitrator found that the grievants were eligible for a remedy for the improper overtime distribution, and directed that one grievant be made whole for 10 hours of overtime and the other grievant be made whole for 8 hours of overtime.

III. Discussion

As its exception, the Union contends in essence that the award violates law, regulation and the parties' agreement. The Union contends, among other things, that under the parties' agreement, the Arbitrator should have awarded 18 hours of overtime pay to each grievant.

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 the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for example, Air Force Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, California and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 2429, 24 FLRA No. 58 (1986) (the exception disagreed with the arbitrator's fashioning of a remedy and provided no basis for finding the award deficient); and Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2052, Petersburg, Virginia, 13 FLRA 108 (1983) (exceptions, which merely attempt to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions, provide no basis for finding the award deficient).

Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., September 29, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY