Dobbins Air Force Base (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2069 (Union) (Authority decision, March 24, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolved exceptions to an arbitral award. 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 one.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator upheld Dobbins Air Force Base’s termination of a probationary employee after finding shortcomings in attitude and cooperation. The union argued that the award failed to discuss a required written performance appraisal. The Authority found that the absence of discussion did not establish a legal defect and that the union had not shown the termination violated the cited rules. It denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: The award sustaining the probationary termination was upheld.
• Key point: Failure to mention a regulation in the award did not itself prove a violation.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p254 ]

08:0254(55)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 55

DOBBINS AIR FORCE BASE
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2069
Union

Case No. O-AR-198

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR GEO. SAVAGE KING FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. SEC.
7122(A)) (THE STATUTE) AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425). THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION. /1/

ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THIS MATTER CONCERNED A GRIEVANCE FILED
OVER THE TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN HIS
ATTITUDE AND WORK PERFORMANCE. THE ARBITRATOR SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT
ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD WAS TO GIVE MANAGEMENT
AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUDGE AN EMPLOYEE IN TERMS OF PERSONAL QUALITIES SUCH
AS ATTITUDE AND COOPERATIVENESS. FINDING THAT THE GRIEVANT FAILED TO
EVIDENCE THE COOPERATIVENESS AND PROPER ATTITUDE THAT ARE VITAL TO A
SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD, THE ARBITRATOR UPHELD
THE TERMINATION.

IN ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO
FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL (FPM) CHAPTER 315, SUBCHAPTER 8, SECTION 8-3A
AND A SIMILAR AIR FORCE REGULATION BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR "DID NOT SPEAK
TO" THE REQUIREMENTS THEREIN THAT A SUPERVISOR MAKE A WRITTEN APPRAISAL
OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE DURING THE 9TH OR 10TH MONTH OF
THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD. HOWEVER, A CONTENTION THAT AN ARBITRATOR "DID
NOT SPEAK TO" A PARTICULAR REGULATION IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING HIS
AWARD DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FINDING AN AWARD DEFICIENT. SEE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2327 AND DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 5
FLRA NO. 23 (1981) AND PRIVATE SECTOR CASES CITED THEREIN. FURTHER, THE
UNION HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AWARD UPHOLDING THE TERMINATION IS
IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO THE CITED REGULATIONS. /2/ IT IS NOTED THAT
THE FPM SECTION CITED BY THE UNION SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT "(N)O
PORTION OF THIS PARAGRAPH (REQUIRING A SIGNED STATEMENT SUBMITTED
THROUGH SUPERVISORY CHANNELS CERTIFYING AS TO THE EMPLOYEE'S
PERFORMANCE) IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS PREVENTING OR DISCOURAGING THE
INITIATION OF REMOVAL ACTION . . . AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROBATIONARY
PERIOD."

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION 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

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ IN ITS OPPOSITION, THE AGENCY ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE UNION'S
EXCEPTION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT UNDER SECTION 2425.2 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRES AN EXCEPTION TO AN
ARBITRATION AWARD TO CONTAIN EVIDENCE OR RULINGS BEARING ON THE ISSUES
BEFORE THE AUTHORITY, ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATED GROUNDS, AND
LEGIBLE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE CASE. HOWEVER, THE
AUTHORITY FINDS NO BASIS IN THIS CASE FOR DETERMINING THAT THE UNION'S
EXCEPTION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT UNDER THIS SECTION OF THE
REGULATIONS.

/2/ ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY NEED NOT PASS UPON WHETHER, IN ANY
EVENT, THE CITED AIR FORCE REGULATION CONSTITUTES A "RULE OR REGULATION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7122(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.