Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923 (Authority decision, April 22, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award permitting the agency to use security system records to verify employee time and attendance. 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 used card key records from a computer center's security system to check an employee's time and attendance reports. AFGE Local 1923 argued that the use violated a memorandum of understanding and the labor agreement. An arbitrator found that the memorandum neither authorized nor prohibited that use and denied the grievance. The Authority treated the union's exceptions as disagreement with the arbitrator's contract interpretation and denied them.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; grievance denial left in place.
• Key point: The union did not show that the arbitrator's reading of the security system agreement was deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p1181 ]
31:1181(101)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA NO. 101

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1491

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Henry L. Jalette. The Arbitrator found that the Social Security Administration did not violate either a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties or the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it used the Agency's computer security system to verify the time and attendance of a unit employee.

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 Agency did not file an opposition. 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.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Agency's National Computer Center (NCC) uses a computerized security system to control access to its security areas. The system monitors thousands of sensors located in the NCC. In order to enter and to move about in the building, employees are required to have card keys which must be inserted into turnstiles. When inserted, the key activates a computer which records the time of entry or exit. Although the computer records the entry and exit times of all employees, employee sign-in and sign-out sheets are the basis for payroll preparation and are used by the Agency for time and attendance purposes.

Prior to its implementation, the Agency proposed that the NCC security system be used for administrative purposes, such as verification of time and attendance data. The parties bargained and entered into a memorandum of understanding establishing certain conditions governing the use of the system.

After agreement on the MOU, the Agency questioned the accuracy of an employee's entries on the sign-in and sign-out sheet. A printout of the computer tape for the dates in question was obtained. Subsequently, the employee was disciplined. The disciplinary action was grieved and was settled without addressing the Agency's use of the computer printout to establish that the employee had falsified her sign-in and sign-out sheets.

After the grievance over the disciplinary action was settled, the grievance in this case was filed and submitted to arbitration. The issue addressed by the Arbitrator was whether the Agency violated the MOU and the parties' agreement by its use of computer tapes to verify the time and attendance reports of employees.

The Arbitrator determined that although the MOU did not authorize use of the security system to monitor employee time and attendance, it also did not prohibit that use. Therefore, the Arbitrator found that the Agency's use of the security system to verify the time and attendance of employees did not violate either the MOU or the parties' agreement. The Arbitrator denied the Union's grievance.

III. Exceptions

The Union contends that: (1) the Arbitrator failed to properly consider and decide the principal issue before him; (2) the award is based on a nonfact because the Arbitrator determined that the MOU both did not authorize and did not prohibit the use of the security system for administrative purposes; and (3) the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by deciding that the MOU did not prohibit the Agency's use of the security system to monitor employees' time and attendance.

IV. Discussion

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 it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations cases. The Union's exceptions constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's conclusion that the MOU and the parties' agreement did not prohibit the use of the security system to monitor employees' time and attendance. See, for example, Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, SSA General Committee, 30 FLRA 381 (1987) (exceptions which merely attempt to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and which constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement provide no basis for finding an award deficient); 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 constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's findings of fact, reasoning, and conclusions provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C. April 22. 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY