AFGE Local 3272 and SSA Holland Branch Office (Authority decision, September 30, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves exceptions to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) generally does not extend to orders involving arbitral awards unless an order involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This order does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator denied a grievance challenging a probationary SSA employee’s separation after finding that management’s appraisal of her work was not shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. The union asserted Privacy Act and unfair labor practice violations and disputed the arbitrator’s reading of the agreement. The Authority found those asserted violations unproven and the contract objection only a disagreement with the arbitrator. It denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; separation award upheld.
• Key point: Unsupported statutory allegations and disagreement with contract interpretation did not show a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p310 ]

10:0310(57)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 57

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 3272
Union

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AREAS VIII & XIV, CHICAGO
REGION, BRANCH OFFICE,
HOLLAND, MICHIGAN
Activity

Case No. O-AR-205

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR SAMUEL S. SHAW 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 AGENCY FILED AN
OPPOSITION.

THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER CONCERNS THE SEPARATION OF THE GRIEVANT
DURING HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD. A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED PROTESTING THE
SEPARATION THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.

ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, THE ARBITRATOR
CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT MANAGEMENT'S APPRAISAL OF THE
GRIEVANT'S COMPETENCE AND PROGRESS AS NOT WARRANTING HER CONTINUED
EMPLOYMENT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR DISCRIMINATORY. THEREFORE, AS
HIS AWARD ON THE MERITS THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD, THE UNION PRINCIPALLY CONTENDS THAT
THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY IN ITS SEPARATION ACTION
VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ARBITRATOR WAS REQUIRED
TO OVERRULE THE GRIEVANT'S SEPARATION. SPECIFICALLY, THE UNION CONTENDS
THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE PRIVACY ACT BY MAINTAINING ILLEGAL
RECORDS AND DATA ON THE GRIEVANT'S WORK PERFORMANCE AND VIOLATED
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE BY IMPLEMENTING NEW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
THE GRIEVANT WITHOUT NOTIFYING AND BARGAINING WITH THE UNION AND BY
HOLDING A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE UNION.

THE UNION IN THESE EXCEPTIONS HAS PROVIDED NO BASIS ON WHICH TO FIND
THE AWARD DEFICIENT. THE UNION HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN WHAT MANNER
DOCUMENTATION OF THE GRIEVANT'S PERFORMANCE DURING HER PROBATIONARY
PERIOD CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT. MOREOVER, THIS
ARGUMENT WAS MADE TO THE ARBITRATOR AND HE EXPRESSLY DETERMINED THAT THE
PROPRIETY OF THE GREIVANT'S SEPARATION WAS ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO ANY RECORDS OR DATA THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PROCEDURALLY
DEFICIENT. LIKEWISE THE UNION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE THAT
THE ARBITRATOR, IN DENYING THE GRIEVANCE, SANCTIONED VIOLATIONS BY THE
ACTIVITY OF PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE CONSTITUTING UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES. THE UNION'S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF CERTAIN CONDUCT
BY THE ACTIVITY WHICH ASSERTEDLY CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE
AND UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CANNOT ESTABLISH, AND THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
AND THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY DO NOT EVIDENCE, THAT SUCH
VIOLATIONS WERE AS A MATTER OF LAW COMMITTED. CONSEQUENTLY NO BASIS FOR
FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7122(A) OF
THE STATUTE IS PROVIDED.

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT
ON SEVERAL GROUNDS BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR DISREGARDED THE BROAD MEANING
OF THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY PROVISION OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHEN HE APPLIED UNDER THE AGREEMENT A STANDARD OF
WHETHER THE SEPARATION WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, DISCRIMINATORY, OR
PATENTLY UNREASONABLE. THIS CONTENTION HOWEVER CONSTITUTES NOTHING MORE
THAN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT IN RESOLVING THE GRIEVANCE BEFORE HIM AND
THEREFORE PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY