Tinker Air Force Base and AFGE Local 916 (Authority decision, June 29, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award rejecting restoration of four days of sick leave. 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

A Tinker Air Force Base employee was placed on medically restricted duty after inhaling paint fumes at work. He used four days of sick leave while on enforced leave and sought to have that leave restored. The arbitrator denied the grievance because the union did not identify an available job the employee could perform within his restrictions. The union argued that the base failed to keep the temporary vacancy list or labor pool required by an Air Force regulation. The Authority held that the arbitrator had found compliance with the regulation and that the union's exception merely contested that finding. It denied the exception, leaving the sick leave award unchanged.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exception denied; award rejecting sick leave restoration stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's finding that the activity complied with its regulation did not establish a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p872 ]
27:0872(96)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA NO. 96

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 916

Union

Case No. O-AR-1355

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

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

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was placed on temporary medically restricted duty as a result of inhalation of paint fumes on his job. During a part of this period, he was placed on enforced leave and as a result used 4 days of sick leave. A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration requesting reinstatement of the sick leave.

The Arbitrator denied the grievance and found that the Union was unable to identify a single job which was available during the period in dispute and which could have been performed by the grievant consistent with his restrictions. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the Activity had violated the local supplement to Air Force Regulation (AFR) 40-716 by failing to maintain a list of temporary vacancies suitable for employees on restricted duty or to form a labor pool for the day-to-day staffing of such activities. The Arbitrator found the Activity to be in compliance with the regulation. He noted that a book containing the names of all employees on medically restricted duty formed the labor pool for the day-to-day staffing and that while there was no written list of temporary vacancies, certain vacancies were known by all to be generally available for medically restricted employees.

III. Discussion and Conclusion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator's determination that the Activity complied with AFR 40-716 is contrary to that regulation.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, 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-management relations cases. See, for example, Department of the Air Force, McGuire Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 1778, 6 FLRA 283 (1981) (the union's exception that the award was contrary to an Air Force regulation provided no basis for finding the award deficient because it merely represented an attempt to relitgate the matter before the Authority). Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY