Veterans Administration, Amarillo, Texas and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1138 (Authority decision, October 30, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award sustaining a 10-day suspension. 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 laboratory medical technician at the Amarillo Veterans Administration hospital misspelled a patient's surname on blood unit labels and in the blood bank log. The error was not noticed during the first unit's release and was found before the second transfusion. The hospital suspended the technician for 10 days, citing this mistake and two recent failures to follow procedures. An arbitrator upheld the suspension. The Authority rejected the union's claim that the arbitrator was biased or had ignored the evidence, leaving the suspension award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; 10-day suspension upheld in arbitration.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's factual findings did not show a legal defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p1322 ]
29:1322(106)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 106

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
AMARILLO, TEXAS

Activity

and

NFFE, LOCAL 1138

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1433

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Robert L. Taylor 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

The grievant, a medical technician in the hospital laboratory at the Veterans Administration, Amarillo, Texas, misspelled a patient's surname on the "CAUTION ALERT" tags attached to three units of blood and on the Blood Bank Log. The hospital's procedures require that the medical technician and the nurse securing the blood from the blood bank check several pieces of information, including the patient's name, prior to release of the blood for transfusion. Neither the medical technician nor the nurse who secured the first unit of blood noticed the misspelling. The error was discovered by another nurse who was to start the patient's second transfusion. Because the grievant had a record of two recent failures to follow hospital procedures, the Activity gave him a 10-day suspension.

The suspension was submitted to arbitration. Before the Arbitrator, the Union argued that the suspension was unwarranted because the misspelling of the patient's name was merely a clerical error and not a breach of hospital procedures. The Arbitrator found that the suspension was justified and denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

As its exception, the Union contends that the Arbitrator was biased and "did not use the evidence as presented and deviated from the issue at hand in deciding the award." Union's Exception at 1. The Agency asserts that the Union's exception fails to meet any of the grounds for appeal of an arbitrator's award.

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, 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 findings of fact, his reasoning and conclusions, and his interpretation and application of the parties' agreement, provide no basis for finding the award deficient).

Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

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

Jerry L Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member