U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1124 (Authority decision, September 22, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to such an order unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision resolves exceptions to an arbitration award and does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

A Corps of Engineers employee was rated qualified but not referred for a lock and dam equipment mechanic promotion. An arbitrator rejected her claim that sex discrimination prevented proper consideration and denied the grievance. The union challenged the award for missing documents, bias, and alleged contract errors. The Authority found those claims unsupported or mere disagreement with the arbitrator’s handling of the dispute and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; award rejecting the promotion grievance stands.
• Key point: Unsupported bias and evidence objections did not establish an award defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p70 ]

13:0070(16)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 16

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
Activity

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 1124
Union

Case No. O-AR-265

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Robert W. Foster 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 arose as the result of the announcement of a vacancy in a position of lock and dam equipment mechanic. The grievant applied for the position, but she was only rated qualified and was not referred to the selecting official. She filed a grievance which was ultimately submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator stated the substantive issue to be whether the grievant had been harassed and discriminated against because of her sex and, if so, had this caused the grievant not to receive proper consideration for promotion. After a careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant had not been denied proper consideration for promotion because of discrimination. In conjunction with this determination, the Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the Activity had failed to produce requested documents. The Arbitrator ruled that management had provided the Union with everything available that had been requested and that documents no longer available had not been improperly destroyed. Accordingly, as his award the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

In its first exception the Union contends that the Activity refused to produce needed evidence and that the Arbitrator's ruling in this respect was harmful error. The Authority concludes that this exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. As noted, the Arbitrator expressly rejected this contention in ruling that management had provided the Union with everything requested that was available, and the Union's unsubstantiated allegation to the contrary as repeated in its exception fails to establish that the award is deficient.

In its second exception the Union contends that the Arbitrator was biased or partial. However, this exception is totally devoid of any substantiation and provides no basis for finding the award deficient. Department of the Army, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2022, 7 FLRA No. 6 (1981).

In its third exception the Union contends that the award does not draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement. In support the Union essentially argues that the Arbitrator erroneously framed the issue presented and that the Arbitrator made numerous errors. The Authority concludes that this exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. The Union fails to establish that the Arbitrator erroneously framed the issue presented. With no apparent joint stipulation of the issue submitted to the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator appropriately determined the issue to be heard and the award is directly responsive to and properly confined to precisely that issue. See Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Louisville, Kentucky District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1790, 10 FLRA No. 73 (1982). Similarly, the Union's assertion that the Arbitrator erred in numerous respects constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions and an attempt to relitigate the merits of this case before the Authority and fails to establish that the award does not draw its essence from the agreement. See, e.g., Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Region VII and National Treasury Employees Union, 7 FLRA No. 49 (1981).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 22, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY