Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, United States Navy and NAGE Local R4-2 (Authority decision, March 24, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied reconsideration of its decision rejecting exceptions to an arbitration award, leaving the award in place. An Authority order under 5 U.S.C. § 7122 concerning an arbitration award is excluded from judicial review by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) unless it involves an unfair labor practice; this order does not identify one.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator denied a Navy employee's grievance over a five-day suspension for being absent from his worksite. The arbitrator credited the supervisor's account over the employee's. The Authority had rejected the union's exceptions because they disputed the arbitrator's assessment of evidence and witness credibility. The union sought reconsideration by pointing to the same hearing testimony. The Authority found no new matter or persuasive reason to reopen the case and denied the motion. The arbitration award remained in place; this decision imposed no separate penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7122 and 7123(a)(1).
• Outcome: Reconsideration denied; the arbitration award remained in place.
• Key point: Repeating objections to an arbitrator's credibility findings did not warrant reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v05 p235 ]

05:0235(29)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

5 FLRA No. 29

SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING,
CONVERSION AND REPAIR,
UNITED STATES NAVY
Activity

and

LOCAL R4-2, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES (NAGE)
Union

Case No. O-AR-176

DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A MOTION FILED BY THE UNION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CASE.

IN THIS CASE THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO
HAD BEEN SUSPENDED FOR FIVE DAYS FOR BEING ABSENT FROM HIS WORKSITE.
THE ARBITRATOR HELD THAT THE ISSUE AT ARBITRATION "BOILED DOWN" TO A
QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE GRIEVANT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN SEEN AWAY FROM HIS
WORKSITE. THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE GRIEVANT'S
SUPERVISOR WAS CREDIBLE AND THAT OF THE GRIEVANT WAS NOT.

THE UNION FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD WITH THE AUTHORITY ALLEGING
THAT THE ARBITRATOR FAILED TO CONSIDER PERTINENT EVIDENCE; THE
AUTHORITY DETERMINED IN 5 FLRA NO. 29 (1981), HOWEVER, THAT THE ESSENCE
OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTION WAS THAT THE ARBITRATOR HAD REACHED A WRONG
CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. THE AUTHORITY FOUND
THAT:

THE UNION'S EXCEPTION THUS CONSTITUTES A DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
ARBITRATOR'S REASONING AND

CONCLUSIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM AND HIS EVALUATION
OF THE TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO HIM, PARTICULARLY THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AND THE
WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THEIR

TESTIMONY. SUCH ASSERTIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE
AWARD DEFICIENT.

IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE UNION ASKS THAT THE AUTHORITY
RECONSIDER THE UNION'S EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD AND, AS IT DID IN ITS
ORIGINAL EXCEPTION, REFERS TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
ARBITRATION HEARING AND TO TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE CONTAINED ON THOSE
PAGES WHICH IT ALLEGES WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ARBITRATOR.

THE UNION'S CONTENTIONS IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE THE
SAME AS THOSE THE AUTHORITY REJECTED IN DENYING THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IN
5 FLRA NO. 29. THUS, THE UNION IS DISAGREEING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S
REASONING IN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEFORE HIM AND IS IN
ESSENCE ATTEMPTING TO RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THAT CASE. AS THE
AUTHORITY POINTED OUT IN 5 FLRA NO. 29, THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS
FOR FINDING AN AWARD DEFICIENT.

THUS, THE UNION IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS NOT RAISED ANY
MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND CORRECTLY DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITY
AND HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY OTHER PERSUASIVE REASONS TO WARRANT REOPENING
OR RECONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 24, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY