Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1815 (Authority decision, October 12, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award upholding an AWOL charge and three-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 employee at Fort Rucker called his supervisor about car trouble and received two hours of emergency annual leave, with instructions to report by 9:30 a.m. He did not report that day or contact the supervisor again. The Army charged six hours of absence without leave and imposed a three-day suspension. An arbitrator found that the employee understood the reporting instruction, that denying a full day of emergency leave did not violate the agreement, and that the penalty was reasonable. The Authority held that AFGE Local 1815's exceptions merely disputed those contract and factual findings, and denied them.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; AWOL charge and three-day suspension stand.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's leave and discipline findings did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v33 p53 ]
33:0053(6)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

33 FLRA No. 6

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
HEADQUARTERS,

UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION
CENTER,

FORT RUCKER,
ALABAMA

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES,

LOCAL 1815

0-AR-1573

DECISION

October 12, 1988

Before Chairman Calhoun and Member
McKee.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Edward C. Johnson, Jr. The grievant filed a grievance challenging a charge of 6 hours of absence without leave (AWOL) and a 3-day suspension for failing to report to work as directed. The Arbitrator 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 award is deficient because the award is contrary to the collective bargaining agreement or the evidence presented.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant's hours of work are 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. On March 20, 1987, at approximately 8:10 a.m., the grievant telephoned his supervisor and stated that he was having car problems. The grievant's supervisor directed him to report to work by 9:30 a.m. and granted him 2 hours of emergency annual leave from the start of his workday until 9:30 a.m. The grievant did not report for work on March 20 and did not contact his supervisor. As a result, he was charged with 6 hours of AWOL and was suspended for 3 days for failing to report to work as directed. The grievant filed a grievance challenging both the charge of AWOL and the 3-day suspension. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

Before the Arbitrator, the Union argued that the car problems experienced by the grievant reasonably required a full day to resolve. The Union maintained that the grievant appropriately contacted his supervisor and requested emergency annual leave. The Union claimed that under the emergency annual leave provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the grievant should have been granted 8 hours of emergency annual leave.

The Arbitrator denied the grievance. The Arbitrator found that the grievant understood that he had been directed to report to work no later than 9:30 a.m. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's failure to contact his supervisor when it appeared that he would be unable to report to work as directed was not responsible or acceptable behavior. The Arbitrator also found that the supervisor's refusal to grant 8 hours of emergency annual leave did not violate the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Under the circumstances, the Arbitrator determined that a 3-day suspension was an appropriate and reasonable penalty.

III. Exception

The Union contends that the award is contrary to the parties' collective bargaining agreement and the evidence presented. The Union argues that in the circumstances presented by the evidence submitted to the Arbitrator, the grievant was entitled under the parties' collective bargaining agreement to have been granted 8 hours of emergency annual leave by his supervisor. Therefore, the Union maintains that by denying the grievance, the award is deficient.

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 are an attempt to relitigate this case before the Authority. They constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement and the Arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions. The exceptions provide no basis for finding the arbitration award deficient. 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) (an exception which constitutes nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient); 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 reasoning and conclusions provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

V. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

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