Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3404 (Authority decision, September 15, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award sustaining a 14-day suspension. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

An Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center employee splashed paint onto his supervisor while cleaning a brush. The agency treated the incident as intentional after earlier confrontations that day and imposed a 14-day suspension. An arbitrator found substantial evidence for the discipline. AFGE Local 3404 challenged her handling of the evidence, her timing, and the penalty analysis. The Authority found no basis to overturn the award and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; 14-day suspension stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator’s fact findings and treatment of evidence did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p1156 ]
32:1156(154)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ARMY MATERIALS AND MECHANICS

RESEARCH CENTER

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3404

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1542

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Blanca E. Torres. The grievant filed a grievance protesting his suspension for 14 days. The Arbitrator found that the 14-day suspension of the grievant was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Arbitrator sustained the discipline and denied the grievance.

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 Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was suspended for 14 days for "creating a disturbance resulting in an adverse effect on morale, production and maintenance of proper discipline." Arbitrator's Award at 3. Specifically, while the grievant was cleaning a paint brush against the inside of a can of paint, the contents of the can landed on the grievant's supervisor. Because of two earlier confrontations the grievant had with this supervisor during the day of the incident, the Activity charged that the incident was intentional on the part of the grievant rather than accidental. The grievant filed a grievance protesting the suspension. The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether substantial evidence supported the disciplinary action against the grievant. If so, the discipline was to be sustained. If not, the discipline was to be rescinded.

Based on the totality of the evidence, the Arbitrator determined that the incident was not accidental. Accordingly, the Arbitrator concluded that substantial evidence supported the 14-day suspension of the grievant. Therefore, the Arbitrator sustained the suspension and denied the grievance.

III. Exceptions

The Union contends that the award is deficient for the following reasons:

1. The Arbitrator does not specifically state whether
   she considered the table of disciplinary penalties in sustaining the suspension.

2. The Arbitrator failed to render her decision within
   the 30 days required by the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

3. The Arbitrator misstated facts and failed to
   specifically discuss pertinent evidence and testimony.

4. The award is not supported by the evidence
   presented.

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. 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 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 and evaluation of the evidence and testimony. They provide no basis for finding the arbitration award deficient. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 85 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Leavenworth, Kansas, 32 FLRA 53 (1988) (exceptions which constitute nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the merits of the grievance and disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact and evaluation of the evidence and testimony provide no basis for finding an award deficient); U.S. Army Plant Representative Office, Bell Helicopter Textron, Fort Worth, Texas and Local 2475, American Federation of Government Employees, 29 FLRA 1329 (1987) (an exception claiming after an award is issued that the award is deficient because it was not issued within an applicable time period provides no basis for finding the award deficient); U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2211, AFL-CIO, 13 FLRA 440 (1983) (an arbitrator does not need to specify or discuss particular items of evidence which were considered and on which the award is based and an award is not deficient for failing to do so).

V. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

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

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