U.S. Department of the Air Force, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916 (Authority decision, May 31, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied an exception to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a). Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to an order involving an arbitral award unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. The arbitrator's denial of the AWOL grievance remains in place.

Plain-English summary

An employee at Tinker Air Force Base called to say he would be several hours late, and the base charged him four hours of absence without leave. He later explained that his car had failed to start and that he had bought a battery and installed a door lock. An arbitrator denied the grievance in light of his attendance record and the denied leave request. AFGE Local 916 challenged the supervisor's testimony and the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence. The Authority held that disagreement with factual and credibility findings did not establish a defect in the award, so the charge stood.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; four-hour AWOL charge upheld.
• Key point: A disagreement over witness credibility and the weight of evidence did not justify setting aside the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v35 p1300 ]
35:1300(151)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

35 FLRA No. 151

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
FORCE

OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS
CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE
BASE

(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 916

(Union)

O-AR-1854

DECISION

May 31, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Hugh R. Catherwood. A grievance was filed contesting the charge to the grievant of 4 hours of absence without leave (AWOL). The Arbitrator denied the grievance.

The Union filed an exception to the award 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 Activity did not file an opposition to the exception.

We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

In December 1988, the grievant was given letters cautioning him as to excessive use of unscheduled annual leave. According to the Arbitrator, during the period of

June 2, 1989, to August 22, 1989, the grievant had been tardy five times, with each tardiness being less than 1 hour, and on three occasions he had requested emergency annual leave. His supervisor excused each incident of tardiness and granted his requests for emergency annual leave.

On August 23, 1989, the grievant telephoned his
supervisor and told her that he would be 3-4 hours late reporting for duty that day. The grievant's supervisor advised him that the time would be charged to AWOL. The grievant reported to work 4 hours late and was informed that he would be charged with 4 hours of AWOL. The grievant did not offer, and his supervisor did not request, the reasons for the absence.

A grievance was filed contesting the 4 hours of AWOL. It was not until the grievance was filed that the grievant explained the cause of his absence: his car would not start and he needed a jump-start; he purchased a new battery; and he installed a deadbolt on his apartment door. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator denied the grievance. The Arbitrator concluded that in view of the grievant's attendance record, he should not have requested leave on August 23 and, having requested leave and having had the request denied, he should have reported for duty promptly.

III. Exception

The Union contends that the award is deficient because it is "contrary to and not within the spirit, intent, and general character of the law" and that the Arbitrator "exceeded the bounds of his authority," as set forth in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Union's Exception at 2. In support of this contention, the Union argues that although the grievant's supervisor testified to the grievant's prior tardiness, the grievant's prior tardiness was never established by the better evidence of actual time cards. The Union also disputes other testimony of the grievant's supervisor and claims that the Arbitrator failed to consider her credibility. The Union further maintains that the grievant's use of emergency annual leave on three occasions in a 3-month period is not excessive.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

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. 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 Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases.

The Union's exception and its supporting arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and his evaluation of the evidence and testimony, including the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. The exception and arguments provide no basis for finding the award deficient. See, for example, Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987, 32 FLRA 193 (1988). Accordingly, we will deny the exception.

V. Decision

The Union's exception is denied.

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)