Metropolitan Correctional Center and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3652 (Authority decision, March 29, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award sustaining a five-day suspension. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

A Metropolitan Correctional Center guard received a five-day suspension for being inattentive while on duty. The arbitrator found that he sat where he could not watch the building and grounds as assigned and that the suspension had just cause. AFGE Local 3652 challenged the arbitrator's fact finding and her reading of the labor agreement. The Authority found that the union's arguments sought to relitigate the grievance and showed no legal defect in the award, so it denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; five-day suspension stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's findings and contract interpretation did not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p1059 ]

31:1059(85)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA NO. 85
31 FLRA 1059

29 MAR 1988
METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER

Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3652

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1449

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Sheila A. Reilly. The Arbitrator determined that the grievant had been inattentive to his duties and that there was just cause for his suspension. 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 Arbitrator did not make incorrect findings of fact or exceed her authority when interpreting the parties' agreement. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was suspended for 5 days for allegedly being inattentive to duty while assigned to prison guard duty. Arbitration was invoked on the issue of whether there had been just and sufficient cause for the grievant's suspension.

Based on the evidence presented, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant had been found sitting in an area in which he could not perform his duty of watching the prison's building and grounds and that discipline was warranted. She concluded that there had been just cause for the suspension and, accordingly, denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the Arbitrator did not evaluate the evidence properly and that she exceeded her authority when interpreting the provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

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. Rather, the Union's contentions constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of facts, with her reasonings and conclusions, and an attempt to relitigate the merits of the grievance before us. See, for example, Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA 20 (1987) (exceptions which attempt to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and which constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact, evaluation of the evidence and testimony, interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement, and conduct of the hearing, provide no basis for finding the award deficient).

IV. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C. March 29,1988.