Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 (Authority decision, December 31, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies union exceptions to an arbitration award upholding an employee reprimand. 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 Social Security Administration reprimanded an employee for refusing to answer a supervisor's questions about alleged damage to a parking sign during work hours. An arbitrator found that the employee was not justified in refusing and that the reprimand had just cause. AFGE Local 1760 argued that the award relied on a false assumption about the supervisor's authority and violated the employee's legal rights. The Authority found that the union had not shown a nonfact, legal conflict, or other defect under its arbitration review standard. It denied the exceptions, leaving the reprimand award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; arbitrator's reprimand ruling stood.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions did not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p684 ]

30:0684(85)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 85
30 FLRA 684

31 DEC 1987

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1441

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Fred L. Denson. The Arbitrator found that the Agency's reprimand of the grievant for refusing to answer questions was for just cause so as to promote the efficiency of the service. The Union filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is based on a nonfact or that it is contrary to law. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was reprimanded for failure to respond to a supervisor's questions regarding the grievant's alleged destruction of a parking sign in a private parking garage during duty hours. The issue decided by the Arbitrator was whether the grievant's refusal to answer the office supervisor's questions was justified because the office supervisor had not satisfied the grievant that she had investigative authority pursuant to the Agency's Standards of Conduct. The Arbitrator found that the grievant was not justified in refusing to respond to the supervisor's inquiries. The Arbitrator concluded that the reprimand was for "just cause so as to promote the efficiency of the service."

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is based on a nonfact because the Arbitrator erred in assuming that a supervisor has authority to conduct investigations. The Union also argues that the award violates the grievant's Constitutional rights and the Privacy Act because the alleged destruction of the parking sign, although it occurred during duty hours, did not take place on Government property and was not a proper object of Government concern.

" We conclude that the Union has not established 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 it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by the Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. The Union is simply disagreeing with the reasoning and conclusions of the Arbitrator. See, for example Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, local 916, AFL - CIO, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA No. 5 (1987) (exceptions which attempt to relitigate the merits of a grievance before the Authority and which constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact, reasoning and conclusions and interpretation and application of a collective bargaining agreement provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

IV. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., December 31, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY