American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916 and Tinker Air Force Base (Authority decision, January 29, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies union exceptions to an arbitration award replacing an employee's reprimand with an oral admonishment. 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

Tinker Air Force Base reprimanded an employee for loafing on duty. An arbitrator found that some discipline was justified but reduced the reprimand to an oral admonishment. AFGE Local 916 challenged the award, alleging unfair hearing procedures, legal and contract errors, and incorrect factual findings. The Authority found no defect under its arbitration review standard. It denied the union's exceptions, leaving the oral admonishment in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; oral admonishment remained in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's fact findings and hearing conduct did not establish a reviewable award defect here.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p1204 ]

30:1204(133)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 133
30 FLRA 1204

29 JAN 1988

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 916

Union

and

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE,
AFLC

Activity

Case No. O-AR-1438

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Barnett M. Goodstein. The Arbitrator determined that the Activity's reprimand of the grievant for loafing on duty was too severe, but that discipline was warranted. He directed that the reprimand be replaced with an oral admonishment. The Union filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, agency regulations, or the parties' collective bargaining agreement, or that the Arbitrator made incorrect findings and failed to conduct a fair hearing. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was reprimanded for loafing on duty. Arbitration was invoked on the issue of whether the reprimand was in accordance with applicable law and regulation and the spirit and intent of the collective bargaining agreement and was for just cause.

Based on the evidence presented, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant had been loafing on the job as, charged and that discipline was warranted. He concluded that a reprimand was too severe but that just cause existed to orally admonish the grievant. Accordingly, he directed that the reprimand be replaced by an oral admonishment.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and that the Arbitrator failed to conduct a fair hearing because the Arbitrator was not impartial, denied the grievant his right to due process and to confront witnesses against him, and refused to compel the Activity to make witnesses requested by the Union available. The Union also contends that the Arbitrator and management violated the agreement and agency regulations and that the Arbitrator made incorrect findings.

We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. Specifically, the Union has failed to establish 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 the Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. The Union is simply attempting to relitigate this case before us. See, for example, Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and America Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA 20 (1987) (exceptions which attempt to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and which constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact, evaluation of the evidence and testimony, interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement, and conduct of the hearing, provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

IV. Decision

The Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C. January 29, 1988

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY