Independent Letterman Hospital Workers Union and Department of the Army, Letterman Army Medical Center, Nutrition Care Division (Authority decision, June 8, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award finding its grievance was not arbitrable. 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 address an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Independent Letterman Hospital Workers Union raised issues about fractional hours and work schedules at an Army medical center. An arbitrator found the grievance was outside arbitration after the union's representative stipulated that the disputed matters were reviewable under the Fair Labor Standards Act and excluded by the labor agreement's grievance procedure. The union argued that the agreement provision had been suspended and could not exclude the grievance. The Authority found that the exception merely disputed the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the agreement. It denied the exception, leaving the ruling that the grievance was not arbitrable in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exception denied; the arbitrator's nonarbitrability ruling is affirmed.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's reading of an agreement does not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p322 ]
32:0322(50)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 50

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

INDEPENDENT LETTERMAN HOSPITAL

WORKERS UNION

Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

LETTERMAN ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

NUTRITION CARE DIVISION

PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO

CALIFORNIA

Activity

Case No. 0-AR-1510

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator John Kagel. The Arbitrator ruled that the Union's grievance was not arbitrable. The Union filed an exception 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 filed an opposition.

We conclude that the Union's exception constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement and provides no basis for finding the award deficient. Therefore, the exception is denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

According to the Arbitrator, the questions raised by the Union in its grievance were whether a "fractional hour" issue and a "schedule of work days" issue were arbitrable. Award at 1. The Arbitrator quoted from a statement made by the Union's representative at the arbitration hearing in which the representative referred to an off-the-record discussion between the parties concerning the resolution of the arbitrability question. The Union representative stated:

That resolution . . . will take the form of a
stipulation between the parties that this isn't a matter subject to arbitration and we make that stipulation based upon the provisions of Article 22 of the grievance procedure, namely Section 2 I, which excludes from the grievance procedure actions reviewable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Award at 1-2.

The Arbitrator ruled that based on the Union's statement and the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the grievance was not arbitrable. He also ruled that the Union was the losing party in the arbitration.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator relied on an agreement provision, Article 22, Section 2.I, which had "no force and effect" because it was "suspended" from the agreement 4 months prior to the hearing. Exceptions at 1. The Union maintained that Article 22, Section 2.I was contrary to law and not permissible under the agreement because it excluded disputes under the Fair Labor Standards Act from the negotiated grievance procedure. The Union contends that the grievance in this case is a Union grievance over interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and that the grievance cannot be excluded under Article 22, Section 2.I.

The Agency filed an opposition contending that the Arbitrator correctly determined that the issues were not arbitrable.

IV. Discussion

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. 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.

The Union's exception constitutes mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement. The Union's representative stipulated to the Arbitrator that Article 22, Section 2.I of the agreement excluded actions reviewable under the Fair Labor Standards Act from the grievance procedure. The Union's representative also stipulated that the issues in this case were matters reviewable under that Act. Award at 3. The Arbitrator accepted that stipulation and ruled that those issues were not arbitrable. See, for example, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29, 22 FLRA 151 (1986) (exception that arbitrator misinterpreted the collective bargaining agreement to find that a matter was not grievable constituted nothing more than disagreement with his interpretation and application of the agreement and provided no basis for finding the award deficient); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2600 and General Services Administration, Region 10, 15 FLRA 189 (1984) (exception that arbitrator misapplied memorandum of understanding to find that grievance was not arbitrable constituted disagreement with arbitrator's interpretation and application of agreement). Therefore, the Union's exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient.

V. Decision

The Union's exception is 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.)