Veterans Administration, Audie L. Murphy Hospital and AFGE Local 3511 (Authority decision, August 16, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. This is an Authority order 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 does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

The Veterans Administration suspended a hospital employee for allegedly falsifying a claim about a back injury at work. An arbitrator found that the agency had not proved just cause and ordered the suspension rescinded. The agency challenged the arbitrator’s legal and factual findings. The Authority held that the exception only disagreed with the arbitrator’s assessment of the evidence, denied it, and left the rescission award standing.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Agency exception denied; award rescinding suspension stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator’s weighing of conflicting testimony did not establish an award defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p607 ]

12:0607(112)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 112

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
AUDIE L. MURPHY HOSPITAL
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 3511
Union

Case No. O-AR-322

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator John F. Caraway filed by the Activity 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 dispute in this matter concerns the suspension of the grievant for 10 days. The Activity maintained that the grievant filed for continuation of regular pay alleging that he had injured his back while in the performance of his duties. Because the Activity concluded that the grievant's injury occurred off the job, the grievant was charged with falsification of an official document for filing the claim for continuation of pay. A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the Activity had just cause to suspend the grievant.

The Arbitrator determined that there was no merit to the Activity's contention that the grievant filed a false claim for an injury which did not occur on the job and that the testimony as to where the injury occurred was irreconcilable. Consequently, the Arbitrator ruled that the Agency had not proved that the suspension of the grievant was for just cause. As the award, the Arbitrator therefore sustained the grievance and ordered the suspension rescinded.

In its exception the Activity contends that "(t)he Arbitrator has made an erroneous interpretation of law and in his decision has misstated the facts." The Authority concludes that the exception does not establish that the award is deficient. In arguing that the Arbitrator erroneously interpreted law and misstated facts, the Activity is merely disagreeing with the Arbitrator's findings of fact, his evaluation of evidence and testimony, and his reasoning in reaching his conclusion that the Activity had not proved that the suspension was for just cause. Accordingly, the exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient and is denied. See, e.g., Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, United States Navy and Local R4-2, National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), 5 FLRA No. 29 (1981). Issued, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY