Commander, Griffiss Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2612 (Authority decision, April 22, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award sustaining a 2.5-hour absence without leave charge. 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 union president at Griffiss Air Force Base left work early after his supervisor denied official time to prepare for contract negotiations. He said he instead worked on a grievance and an unfair labor practice charge. An arbitrator found that he had not told the supervisor he was leaving for those representational tasks and upheld a 2.5-hour absence without leave charge. The union challenged the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement and assessment of the evidence. The Authority found those objections insufficient to show a deficient award and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; 2.5-hour absence charge upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's evidence and contract findings did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p1187 ]
31:1187(103)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA No. 103

COMMANDER, GRIFFISS AIR FORCE BASE

Activity

and

LOCAL 2612, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1496

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Sheila S. Cole 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. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the Activity did not violate the parties' agreement when it charged the grievant with being absent without leave (AWOL) for 2.5 hours on May 21, 1987. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exceptions are denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant is the Union president as well as a Union steward. Under the parties' agreement, Union officers and stewards are allowed official time to assist an employee in the preparation and presentation of a grievance or appeal. The agreement states that "(w)henever it is necessary for an officer or steward to leave his work area to represent an employee, he shall request permission from his immediate supervisor as much in advance as possible. . . ." Award at 3.

On May 20, 1987, the grievant informed his supervisor that he would have to leave early the following day to prepare for contract negotiations. The supervisor told the grievant that he would check with the Agency's labor-relations officer. The Arbitrator found that the next day, the supervisor told the grievant that he would not be permitted to leave early because official time does not include preparation for contract negotiations, and that if he left before 10:30 a.m., he would be charged AWOL. The grievant left work early and was charged with being AWOL from 8:00 to 10:30 a.m.

The grievant contended that on the morning of May 21, he did not prepare for contract negotiations but instead began work on a grievance and unfair labor practice concerning his supervisor's denial of permission to leave work. Before the Arbitrator, the Union asked that the grievant be paid for the 2.5 hours incorrectly charged to AWOL. The Arbitrator concluded, however, that the grievant did not advise his supervisor that he was leaving as a Union steward to perform representational duties, but instead left the workplace without authority. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the Agency did not violate the parties' agreement or applicable law, rule, and regulation.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the Arbitrator interpreted the agreement incorrectly and erred in her credibility findings and evaluation of the evidence.

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 the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for example, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, AFL - CIO, 30 FLRA 482 (1987) (exceptions which merely attempt to relitigate the merits of a grievance and constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of an agreement and 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