Holston Army Ammunition Plant and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2659 (Authority decision, September 19, 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

An arbitrator rejected a union grievance alleging that the Holston Army Ammunition Plant had preselected an unqualified employee as traffic manager. AFGE Local 2659 repeated those objections in exceptions to the award. The Authority held that the exceptions merely disagreed with the arbitrator’s assessment of the evidence. It denied them and left the selection award standing.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; award rejecting the selection grievance stands.
• Key point: Rearguing an arbitrator’s assessment of preselection and qualifications did not establish an award defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p46 ]

13:0046(8)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 8

HOLSTON ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
KINGSPORT, TENNESSEE
(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2659
(Union)

Case No. O-AR-336

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator E. H. Rayson 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 concerns the selection of a particular employee for the position of Traffic Manager. A grievance filed on behalf of a number of other employees contending that the selection should be set aside was ultimately submitted to arbitration. The Arbitrator denied the grievance after considering and rejecting the Union's contentions that (1) the selectee was preselected; (2) the selectee was not qualified; and (3) the asserted preselection of the unqualified employee violated the parties' agreement and agency regulations.

In its exceptions, the Union essentially reiterates the contentions made before the Arbitrator. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, including the Union's contentions, the Authority concludes that the Union's exceptions do not provide any basis for finding the award deficient. It is clear that the Union is merely attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority since the thrust of the Union's exceptions constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence and testimony presented him. Such disagreement does not provide a basis for finding the award deficient. E.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2327 and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, 5 FLRA No. 23 (1981); Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, United States Navy and Local R4-2, National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), 5 FLRA No. 29 (1981).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 19, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY