United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and National Border Patrol Council, AFGE Local 1929 (Authority decision, October 27, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award providing eight hours of official time for employee representation. 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

A Border Patrol chief steward used union block time to represent an employee facing proposed removal after management denied a request for official time. An arbitrator found that the agency should have allowed eight hours of official time and ordered those hours restored to the union's block time allotment. The National Border Patrol Council argued that the award should have provided 12 hours. The Authority found that the union's objections amounted to disagreement with the arbitrator's factual findings and contract interpretation. It denied the exceptions, leaving the eight-hour award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union's exceptions denied; eight-hour official time award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's assessment of the hours did not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p1177 ]
29:1177(85)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 85

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE

Agency

and

NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL,
AFGE 1929

Union

Case No. O-AR-1417

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Wallace B. Nelson 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. The Agency filed an opposition to the exceptions. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exceptions are denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration concerning management's denial of official time to a Union representative. The Arbitrator framed the issue as whether management violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by refusing to grant the chief steward's request for official time to represent a unit employee in a proposed removal action.

The Arbitrator determined, based on his interpretation of the parties' contract, that the dispute in this case was subject to an Agency regulation concerning discipline and adverse actions. The Arbitrator further determined that under this regulation the chief steward should have been authorized 8 hours of official time to represent the employee in the removal action. The Arbitrator therefore concluded that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by refusing to grant the chief steward's request for official time. As his award, he ordered that the Agency add 8 hours of official time to the appropriate Union office "block time" allotment to replace the "block time" used by the chief steward to represent the unit employee in the proposed removal action.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award (1) does not draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement, in particular the provision concerning the use of official time, (2) is based on a nonfact, and (3) is contrary to law. The Union therefore asserts that the Arbitrator's award is deficient and should be modified to allow the Union 12 hours of official time rather than the 8 awarded by the Arbitrator. The Agency disagrees with the Union's exceptions and contends that they constitute mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's Opinion and Award.

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. The Union's arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and his specific reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence, and generally with his interpretation and application of the parties' agreement. We consistently have held that such disagreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient. See, for example, Defense Logistics Agency and the DLA Council of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) AFL - CIO Locals, Local 3953, 29 FLRA No. 45 (1987); Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2025, Petersburg, Virginia, 13 FLRA 108 (1983).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., October 27, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B Frazier III. Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY