Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Authority decision, September 15, 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

The union requested eight hours of official time for 75 representatives to attend a labor-relations seminar. Norfolk Naval Shipyard allowed a shorter excused absence for five representatives, and an arbitrator denied the union’s grievance. The union challenged his reading of the agreement and personnel guidance. The Authority found no demonstrated conflict with that guidance and denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; arbitrator’s denial of grievance upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator’s contract interpretation was insufficient to disturb the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p53 ]

10:0053(13)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 13

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
Activity

and

TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. O-AR-255

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR J. HARVEY DALY 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 DID NOT
FILE AN OPPOSITION.

THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN THE UNION REQUESTED EIGHT HOURS
OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR 75 UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND A LABOR
RELATIONS SEMINAR CONDUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY'S REGIONAL OFFICE. THE
ACTIVITY DENIED THE REQUEST AS UNREASONABLE AND ALLOWED UP TO FOUR HOURS
EXCUSED TIME FOR ONLY FIVE REPRESENTATIVES. THE UNION FILED A GRIEVANCE
WHICH WENT TO ARBITRATION ON THE ISSUE:

DID THE NAVY VIOLATE THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE CONTROLLING
LABOR AGREEMENT WHEN IT

LIMITED THE NUMBER OF TRAINEES TO A FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
TRAINING SESSION TO 5

MEMBERS FOR A PERIOD OF 4 HOURS, INSTEAD OF THE UNION'S REQUESTED
NUMBER OF 75 MEMBERS FOR 8

HOURS.

THE ARBITRATOR STATED THAT HIS DECISION TURNED ON THE INTERPRETATION
OF ARTICLE 22, SECTION 4 OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED THAT A
"REASONABLE NUMBER" OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE EXCUSED FOR
TRAINING IF THE TRAINING WOULD BE OF MUTUAL CONCERN TO THE ACTIVITY AND
THE UNION, AND THAT EXCUSED TIME WOULD NOT NORMALLY EXCEED EIGHT HOURS
PER INDIVIDUAL PER YEAR. HE DISALLOWED THE UNION'S CONTENTION THAT PAST
PRACTICE SUPPORTED ITS REQUEST AND HELD THAT 75 EMPLOYEES WAS "FAR IN
EXCESS OF ANY NUMBER ESTABLISHED BY PAST PRACTICE." HE NOTED THAT THE
TRAINING SESSION WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
THAT ONLY FIVE UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE EMPOWERED TO FILE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE CHARGES. HE CONCLUDED THAT "THE 'REASONABLE NUMBER' TO BE
TRAINED, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LABOR AGREEMENT WOULD BE THOSE FIVE
PEOPLE." HE ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME NEEDED FOR TRAINING
OF MUTUAL CONCERN WAS FOUR HOURS INSTEAD OF EIGHT. FINDING NO VIOLATION
OF THE AGREEMENT, HE DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.

AS ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION ALLEGES THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE IT
IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND "IS NOT WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF
FPM 990-2 (ADMINISTRATIVE EXCUSALS) NOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 22,
SECTION 4." THE UNION CONTENDS THE ARBITRATOR "HAS CHANGED THE INTENT
AND MEANING OF ARTICLE 22, SECTION 4 OF OUR NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT."

THE UNION'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
DEFICIENT UNDER THE STATUTE. THE UNION HAS NOT SHOWN HOW THE AWARD IS
CONTRARY TO THE FPM AND ON ITS FACE THE UNION'S EXCEPTION CONSTITUTES
NOTHING MORE THAN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF THE AGREEMENT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. SUCH
DISAGREEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
DEFICIENT. E.G., LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1429, 5 FLRA NO. 35(1981). ACCORDINGLY THE
UNION'S EXCEPTION IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 15, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY