Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916 (Authority decision, January 28, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies a union exception to an arbitration award rejecting an employee's claim for overtime pay. 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

AFGE Local 916 challenged the denial of an overtime assignment to a warehouse worker at Tinker Air Force Base. When his supervisor prepared the overtime roster, the worker was restricted to sedentary duty because of a back condition. The restriction ended the next day, but the supervisor did not revise the roster. An arbitrator rejected the worker's claim for eight hours of overtime pay. The Authority denied the union's exception because its objections did not establish a legal or other recognized defect in the award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; the denial of overtime pay stood.
• Key point: The union did not show that the arbitrator's award was deficient under the governing review standard.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p1102 ]

30:1102(121)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 121
30 FLRA 1102

28 JAN 1988

OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 916

Union

Case No. O-AR-1446

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator I.B. Helburn 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 Arbitrator denied the grievant's request for overtime pay, finding that the Agency did not violate the parties' agreement or applicable laws, rules, and regulations. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exception is denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant, a warehouse worker, had been identified since July 1986 as medically disabled because of back problems. Medical restrictions regarding lifting, pushing and pulling heavy items, and prolonged standing or repeated bending limited his work assignments. On July 7, 1987, the grievant was in an auto accident. On July 8, his back stiffened and he went to "base medical." He returned to work with an administrative permit which stated that he was capable of resuming limited duties and was on sedentary duty for 1 day. The permit also stated that the grievant was to be rechecked on July 9.

On July 8, the grievant's supervisor received instructions to run an overtime roster for July 11 for the "overpak" line. The grievant had not worked the warehouse's "overpak" line in the past year. The grievant asked for overtime, but was marked "lacks ability" because he was restricted to sedentary duty at the time. The sedentary restriction was lifted the following day, July 9, but the supervisor did not allow the grievant the overtime because the roster had been run. The grievant sought overtime pay for the 8 hours he thought he should have worked on July 11. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the Agency did not violate the parties' agreement or applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

III. Discussion

As its exception, the Union contends that (1) the Agency did not follow its regulations; (2) the Arbitrator's award is inconsistent with applicable agreement provisions regarding arbitration and overtime; and (3) violates the U.S. Constitution.

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 relations cases. See, for example, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, AFL - CIO, 30 FLRA No. 61 (1987) (exceptions which merely attempt to relitigate the merits of a grievance and constitute nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of an agreement and reasoning and conclusions provide no basis for finding an award deficient); and Air Force Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, California and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 2429, 24 FLRA 516 (1986) (the Authority, like the Federal courts, will accord an arbitrator's formulation of the issue submitted in the absence of a stipulation the same substantial deference accorded an arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement).

Accordingly, the union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean Mckee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY