U.S. Department of the Army, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2022 (Authority decision, January 23, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award rejecting a promotion grievance. 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

An employee at Fort Campbell grieved when he was not selected for a WG-10 boiler plant operator position. The arbitrator found that he lacked some required qualifications and that the selected employee was best qualified, so the selection complied with the labor agreement. The union argued that the arbitrator had confused the witnesses' testimony and submitted statements disputing his account. The Authority found that those unsworn statements did not establish a clearly erroneous central fact that would change the result. It denied the exception, leaving the selection award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exception denied; award rejecting the promotion grievance stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's assessment of witness testimony did not show a decisive factual error.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v34 p518 ]
34:0518(85)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

34 FLRA NO. 85

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION
FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2022

0-AR-1771

DECISION

January 23, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Wanza C. Johnson. The grievant filed a grievance over his failure to be selected for promotion to a WG-10, boiler plant operator position. The Arbitrator found that the selection was in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

American Federation of Government Employees Local 2022 (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 Department of the Army (the Agency) filed an opposition to the exception on behalf of Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell (the Activity).

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.

II. Background and the Arbitrator's Award

The grievant filed a grievance over his failure to be selected for promotion to a WG-10, boiler plant operator position. The Arbitrator determined on the basis of testimony presented that: (1) the grievant was not qualified in all phases of the requirements for the boiler plant operator position; and (2) the employee selected was the best qualified for the position. Therefore, the Arbitrator concluded that the selection for the position was in accordance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. The Union

The Union contends that the Arbitrator "was apparently very confused in determining who testified on behalf of the Union and who testified on behalf of the employer." Union's Exception at 1. The Union has submitted to the Authority statements from some of the witnesses at the arbitration that dispute the testimony attributed to them by the Arbitrator.

B. The Agency

The Agency contends that the Union's contention that the Arbitrator confused the testimony of the witnesses fails to state a ground on which an arbitration award will be found deficient under the Statute.

IV. Discussion

The Authority will find an arbitration award deficient when the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached. For example, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama and Local 1858, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, 18 FLRA 374 (1985) (Redstone Arsenal). We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is deficient on this ground. We are not persuaded that the unsworn statements submitted by the Union establish that the Arbitrator's determinations that the grievant was not fully qualified and that the employee selected was the best qualified are clearly erroneous. In our view, the Union is merely disagreeing with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and his evaluation of the evidence and testimony. The Union's exception fails to establish that the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached and provides no basis for finding the award deficient under the Statute. Compare Redstone Arsenal, 18 FLRA 374 (award deficient because the central fact underlying the award was clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached) with Department of the Navy Finance Center and Local Union No. 3283, American Federation of Government Employees, 32 FLRA 754 (1988) (contentions that constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact and evaluation of the evidence do not establish that the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for which a different result would have been reached and provide no basis for finding an award deficient under the Statute).

Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exception.

V. Decision

The Union's exception is denied.