Maxwell Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Interdepartmental Local No. 997 (Authority decision, May 22, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union’s exception to an arbitration award upholding rotating shift assignments for computer operators. 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

Three Maxwell Air Force Base computer operators challenged rotating shift assignments and sought permanent day shifts. An arbitrator found that the labor agreement and their position descriptions allowed rotating shifts, and that earlier day-shift assignments did not create a binding past practice. The union argued that the arbitrator misread the agreement and ignored past practice. The Authority held that disagreement with the arbitrator’s interpretation did not establish a defect and denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union’s exception denied; rotating shift assignments stand.
• Key point: Past day-shift assignments did not entitle the operators to permanent day shifts under the arbitrator’s interpretation.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p101 ]

27:0101(17)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 17

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERDEPARTMENTAL
LOCAL NO. 997
Union

Case No. O-AR-1332

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Roger C. Williams filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) andK part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

Grievances were filed by three Computer Operators assigned to the computer room of the 1973rd Information Systems Group, Maxwell Air Force Base, challenging their assignments to rotating shifts. The employees alleged that the assignments were in violation of Article XV, Section 1, 6b and 7 of the parties' agreement and requested that they be permanently assigned to the day shift as long as they remained in their current positions. The Agency denied the grievances, asserting that management retained the right to assign personnel to shifts. The grievances were consolidated and referred to arbitration.

The Arbitrator found that Article XV clearly contemplated the assignment of employees to rotating shifts and that the grievants' position descriptions specifically state that they may be assigned to rotating shifts. He also found that even though management had assigned the grievants to the day shift for an extended period, the extended assignments did not constitute a binding past practice which gave the grievants the right to remain on the day shift. The Arbitrator concluded that the parties' agreement authorized the Agency to assign the grievants to work rotating shifts and that there was no contractual basis for the assertion that the grievants were entitled to remain on the day shift. The Arbitrator noted that Article XV, Section 7 of the agreement, which the Union cited as a bar to the assignments, was inapplicable to the changes in the grievants' schedules and did not obligate the Agency to negotiate with the Union over the change. He held that Section 7 applied to changes in the operating hours of the Agency, not to changes in individual employee work schedules. Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the grievances.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the Arbitrator rewrote the parties' agreement when he held that (1) Article XV, Section 7 did not apply to individual shifts and (2) the Agency had no obligation to negotiate with the Union concerning the shift assignments. The Union also argues that the Arbitrator ignored the parties' past practice and ruled contrary to law when he found that there ws no past practice.

We conclude that the Union's exception fails to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient. The exception constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arabitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement and such disagreement provides no basis for finding the award deficient. See, for example, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29, 22 FLRA No. 15 (1986) (interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement is a question solely for the arbitrator in that it is the arbitrator's construction of the agreement for which the parties have bargained).

Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., May 22, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY