American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 and U.S. Army Missile Command (Authority decision, November 1, 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

The Army Missile Command changed the tours of duty of instructors and support staff. An arbitrator found that keeping the former schedule would seriously hinder the school’s teaching function, so he denied the union’s grievance under the parties’ agreement. AFGE Local 1858 argued that the arbitrator had misread the agreement and the activity had surrendered its right to change schedules. The Authority treated the exceptions as disagreement with the arbitrator’s contract interpretation and denied them.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; award rejecting the schedule grievance stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator’s reading of the collective bargaining agreement did not show a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p343 ]

13:0343(56)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 56

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1858, AFL-CIO
(Union)

and

U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND, MISSILE
AND MUNITIONS CENTER AND SCHOOL,
REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA
(Activity)

Case No. O-AR-277

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Sherman Dallas filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

The dispute in this matter concerns the Activity's change in the tour of duty for certain instructors and support personnel. The issue before the Arbitrator was whether the Activity violated the provision in the parties' collective bargaining agreement pertaining to tour of duty changes, which prohibits such changes if "continuation of the regular tour of duty would not seriously handicap the performance of a function or would not result in substantially increased cost." The Arbitrator concluded that continuation of the former tour of duty would have seriously handicapped the performance of the teaching function at the Activity's school. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

In its exceptions, the Union essentially alleges that the award is contrary to law and the parties' agreement because it is based on the Arbitrator's misinterpretation and misapplication of the cited provision in the agreement. The Union maintains that by agreeing to the provision the Activity gave up its right to change tours of duty without negotiating with the Union.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, including the contentions of the parties, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient. It is clear that the Union is attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority since the Union's exceptions and supporting contentions essentially constitute disagreement with the Arbitrator's conclusion that the tour of duty change was not violative of the parties' agreement. It is well-established that disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement does not provide a basis for finding an award deficient under the Statute. E.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1210 and Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 FLRA No. 17 (1982).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., November 1, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY