Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point, North Carolina and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 2297 (Authority decision, May 11, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied an exception to an arbitration award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a). Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to an order involving an arbitral award unless the order involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116.

Plain-English summary

The Cherry Point Naval Air Rework Facility separated a probationary employee after attempts to assign work he could perform without discomfort from fiberglass or fumes failed. An arbitrator found that the separation complied with the parties' agreement and that the facility had applied the cited injury regulations fairly and equitably. The union argued that the award was contrary to law or regulation. The Authority found that the union had shown only disagreement with the arbitrator's reading of the agreement and his conclusions. It denied the exception and left the award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; arbitration award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement did not establish a legal defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v14 p497 ]

14:0497(79)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

14 FLRA No. 79

NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY,
CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Activity

and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 2297
Union

Case No. O-AR-440

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Hoyt N. Wheeler 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 arose when the Activity separated the grievant during his probationary period after a number of efforts to assign him to work he could perform without also experiencing discomfort from fiberglass or fumes proved unsuccessful. The issue before the Arbitrator was whether the grievant was properly discharged in accordance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement and applicable regulations. /1/

The Arbitrator essentially found that the Activity's separation of the grievant was proper under the circumstances and, further, that the Activity had applied the regulations pertaining to job related injury situations, which were relied upon by the Union, "fairly and equitably" as required by the parties' agreement. The Arbitrator concluded that the Activity had not violated the agreement and therefore denied the grievance.

In its exception, the Union alleges that the award is contrary to law, rule or regulation. In support of its exception, the Union essentially reiterates the same arguments which it made before the Arbitrator as to what constitutes fair and equitable application of the regulations relied upon in the grievant's case and asserts that the Arbitrator erred by finding otherwise.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the award is contrary to law, rule or regulation. It is clear that the Union is merely seeking to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority since the thrust of the Union's exception constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the "fairly and equitably" standard set forth in the parties' agreement, as well as with his reasoning and conclusions in resolving the issue before him. It is well-established that such disagreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient. E.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1210 and Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 FLRA No. 17 (1982); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 12 FLRA No. 116 (1983).

Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 11, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ The issue of whether the grievant's termination during his probationary period was grievable and arbitrable was not raised before the Arbitrator or the Authority. Therefore, and in view of our disposition of the merits of the Union's exception, it is not necessary for the Authority to address the applicability in this case of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 709 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1983), or the Authority's recent decision in U.S. Department of Labor, Labor-Management Services Administration, Cleveland, Ohio and National Union of Compliance Officers, 13 FLRA No. 109 (1984).