Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Council 214 (Authority decision, April 28, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitrator's interpretation of the deadline for invoking expedited arbitration. 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

AFGE Council 214 disputed when a five-workday deadline to request expedited arbitration began under its agreement with the Air Force Logistics Command. An arbitrator read the deadline as running from the date of the agency's Step 3 grievance decision rather than the date the union received it. The union argued that this interpretation made the grievance process unfair under federal law. The Authority found the interpretation was not inherently unfair and did not necessarily prevent arbitration. It denied the exception without deciding whether a particular application of the deadline might violate the law.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(b) and 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exception denied; arbitrator's deadline interpretation left in place.
• Key point: This interpretation of the contractual deadline was not itself contrary to the statutory grievance procedure requirements.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p1268 ]
31:1268(114)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA NO. 114

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE
BASE, OHIO

Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES COUNCIL NO. 214, AFL-CIO

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1473

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Donald V. Staudter 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. This case concerns the Arbitrator's interpretation of the time limit for the Union to invoke expedited arbitration under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exception is denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Union filed a grievance over the interpretation of section 7.08(c) of the parties' master labor agreement, entitled "Invoking Expedited Arbitration." That section states that if the Union wishes to invoke expedited arbitration, the Union must present to the Agency "a written request for expedited arbitration within five workdays of the (Agency's) Step 3 decision." The issue before the Arbitrator was whether the time limit for the Union to invoke expedited arbitration was within 5 workdays of the date of the Step 3 grievance decision or within 5 workdays of the Union's receipt of the Step 3 grievance decision.

Based on his interpretation of the parties' agreement, the Arbitrator determined that the time limit for the Union to invoke expedited arbitration was within 5 workdays of the date of the Agency's Step 3 grievance decision. He found no evidence or past practice establishing a different time frame.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the Arbitrator's award violates section 7121(b) of the Statute. Specifically, the Union asserts that the award violates the requirements of section 7121(b) that the parties' negotiated grievance procedure: (1) "be fair and simple"; (2) "assure an exclusive representative the right, in its own behalf or on behalf of any employee in the unit represented by the exclusive representative, to present and process grievances"; and (3) "provide that any grievance not satisfactorily settled under the negotiated grievance procedure shall be subject to binding arbitration which may be invoked by either the exclusive representative or the agency." The Union asserts that under the award, it will not be able to invoke expedited arbitration if it receives Step 3 decisions more than 5 workdays after the date of those decisions. According to the Union, the award violates section 7121(b) because it may prevent the Union from invoking expedited arbitration. The Agency did not file an opposition.

We find that the award does not conflict with section 7121(b) of the Statute. The Arbitrator's interpretation of the contractual provision, which requires the Union to present a written request to the Agency within 5 workdays of the Agency's Step 3 grievance decision, is not in and of itself unfair, does not necessarily preclude the Union from invoking expedited arbitration, and is not otherwise in violation of section 7121(b). We conclude, therefore, 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 law, rule, or regulation or that it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations.

This case does not present an issue as to a specific application of the parties' contractual provision. Therefore, we do not address whether or not any particular application of this contractual provision would violate section 7121(b) of the Statute.

The Union's contentions constitute no more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' agreement. We consistently have held that such disagreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient. See, for example, Defense Logistics Agency and The DLA council of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) AFL - CIO Locals, Local 3953, 29 FLRA 465 (1987). Therefore, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY