U.S. Department of the Air Force, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base and AFGE Local 916 (Authority decision, March 9, 1993)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award, ending this exception proceeding. 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 Air Force employee challenged the effective date of her conversion to an on-call aircraft mechanic helper position after a later reduction in force ended her employment. The arbitrator denied her grievance because it was filed more than 20 months after the conversion, beyond the agreement's filing deadline. The union argued that she learned of the changed date much later. The Authority found that the arbitrator had described that later awareness as an allegation and had also noted an earlier document showing the changed date. It found no basis to overturn the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement and declined to consider a grievance meeting argument that had not been raised before the arbitrator. The union's exceptions were denied.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Exceptions denied; the award dismissing the grievance as untimely remains in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's reading of a grievance deadline did not establish that the award was deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v47 p106 ]
47:0106(6)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

47 FLRA No. 6

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 916

(Union)

0-AR-2360

_____

DECISION

March 9, 1993

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Andrew L. Springfield filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's exceptions.

The Arbitrator denied a grievance challenging the effective date of a certain personnel action because the Arbitrator concluded that the grievance was not timely filed. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union's exceptions do not demonstrate that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

In December 1988, the grievant volunteered and was selected for conversion from a Production Scheduling Clerk position to an on-call Aircraft Mechanic Helper position. Although the grievant originally was scheduled for conversion on January 15, 1989, that date was changed to January 22, 1989, pursuant to a request from her supervisor. At that time, the grievant was furnished with a document "which indicated January 22, 1989, as the date the
[g]rievant was to begin work in her new position." Award at 2.

In 1990, on-call employees were placed in nonduty/nonpay status and, pursuant to a reduction in force, only employees with effective employment dates of January 15, 1989, or earlier were retained. The employment of others, including the grievant, was terminated. On September 28, 1990, the grievant filed a grievance challenging the change in the date of her conversion from January 15, 1989 to January 22, 1989. When the grievance was not resolved, it was submitted to arbitration.

Noting that the grievance was filed over 20 months after the grievant's conversion to on-call status, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievance was not filed in accordance with the time limits established in Article 6, Section 6.07 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.(1) Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Exceptions

The Union argues that the award is contrary to section 7122(a)(1) of the Statute (2) and fails to draw its essence from the parties' agreement. According to the Union, the Arbitrator found that the grievant did not become reasonably aware of the change in her conversion date until September 23, 1990, and, as such, the grievance was timely. The Union also argues that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by failing to hold a timely grievance meeting.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 7122(a)(1) of the Statute sets forth grounds on which an arbitration award may be found deficient. As the Union has not explained how the award violates this provision or specified any other law with which the award allegedly conflicts, we will deny the Union's exception that the award is contrary to law.

We also will deny the Union's exception that the award fails to draw its essence from the parties' agreement. To demonstrate that an award is deficient on this ground, a party must show that an award: (1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact, and so unconnected with the wording and purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; (3) evidences a manifest disregard for the agreement; or (4) does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement. For example, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2109 and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Temple, Texas, 46 FLRA 446, 448 (1992).

The Arbitrator noted that the grievance was filed over 20 months after the date of the grievant's conversion to on-call status. Moreover, contrary to the Union's assertion, the Arbitrator did not find that the grievant became aware of the change in her conversion date only on September 23, 1990. The Arbitrator stated that "[o]n September 23, 1990, . . . the [g]rievant learned, allegedly for the first time, that the date of her appointment . . . had been changed . . . ." Award at 2 (emphasis added). As noted previously, the Arbitrator also stated that, prior to the conversion, the grievant was provided a document containing the changed conversion date.

Consistent with these arbitral findings, we find nothing in the Arbitrator's conclusion that the grievance was not timely filed that evidences an irrational or implausible interpretation of the parties' agreement. Instead, we conclude that the Union's exception constitutes mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the parties' agreement. Such disagreement provides no basis for finding the award deficient. For example, U.S. Department of the Army, Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1815, 39 FLRA 1113, 1116 (1991).

Finally, there is no indication that the Union's argument that the Agency failed to hold a timely grievance meeting was presented to the Arbitrator. As such, we conclude under section 2429.5 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, that the argument is not properly before us and we will not consider it further.(3) See U.S. Department of the Army, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1920, 46 FLRA 609, 613-14 (1992).

V. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

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

1. The Arbitrator did not quote the
   cited contract provision. According to the Union, that provision provides as follows, in pertinent part:

An employee . . . desiring to file a grievance must first discuss the matter informally with his first level supervisor within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of the management action or occurrence giving rise to the grievance or reasonable awareness of such action or occurrence.

Exceptions at 5 (emphasis deleted).

2. Section 7122(a)(1) provides that an
   arbitration award is deficient if it "is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation[.]"

3. Section 2429.5 of the Authority's
   Rules and Regulations provides, in pertinent part:

The Authority will not consider evidence offered by a party, or any issue, which was not presented in the proceedings before the . . . arbitrator.