American Federation of Government Employees, Local 85 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Leavenworth, Kansas (Authority decision, May 9, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award sustaining an employee's 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

A Veterans Administration medical center reprimanded an employee after concluding that he had misrepresented his inability to work when requesting sick leave. An arbitrator denied the grievance and found the reprimand appropriate. The union argued that the award rested on facts outside the record and conflicted with the parties' agreement. The Authority found that these objections challenged the arbitrator's evaluation of evidence and interpretation of the agreement rather than showing a legal defect. It denied the exceptions, leaving the reprimand award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; reprimand award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's factual findings and contract interpretation does not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p53 ]
32:0053(5)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 85

Union

and

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL

CENTER, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

Activity

Case No. 0-AR-1486

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John M. Gradwohl. The Arbitrator denied the grievance over the reprimand of the grievant. The Arbitrator found that the grievant had misrepresented his inability to work when he requested sick leave and that a reprimand was an appropriate penalty.

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. The Activity did not file an opposition.

We conclude that the Union has not established that the award is (1) based on facts not in evidence, or (2) contrary to the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

On February 3, 1987, the grievant called his supervisor and represented that he was unable to work. The grievant requested 3 hours of sick leave, which his supervisor granted. On February 4, 1987, the Activity charged the grievant with misrepresenting that he was unable to work on February 3. On the basis of this charge, the grievant was denied sick leave, was charged with being absent without leave, and was reprimanded. A grievance was filed claiming that the reprimand was not warranted and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator determined that the grievant had misrepresented the reasons for his absence on February 3, 1987, and that a reprimand was an appropriate penalty. Although the Arbitrator noted "possible procedural deficiencies" in management's handling of the reprimand, he determined that "these possible procedural deficiencies were, at most, harmless errors." Award at 10. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is (1) based on facts not in evidence, and (2) contrary to the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Union argues that the Arbitrator did not properly consider the testimony of the grievant and the grievant's medical statement. The Union also argues that the award is contrary to the agreement because it is based on an "unfounded" statement and because a reprimand was not warranted under the agreement's requirement of progressive discipline.

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. 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.

The Union's exceptions constitute nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the merits of the grievance and disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact, evaluation of the evidence and testimony, reasoning and conclusions, and interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement. They provide no basis for finding the award deficient. 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 a grievance and which constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's findings, conclusions, and interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

IV. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

_____
Jerry L. Calhoun,
Chairman
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)