Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Depot Memphis and AFGE Local 2501 (Authority decision, September 15, 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 upheld a five day suspension imposed on a Defense Depot Memphis employee for failing to report to duty on time. AFGE Local 2501 challenged the award, arguing that the arbitrator misunderstood the issues and failed to consider its evidence. The Authority found that the union was asking it to revisit the arbitrator’s reasoning and factual conclusions. It denied the exception and left the award standing.

Decision snapshot

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

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p5 ]

13:0005(2)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 2

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
DEFENSE DEPOT MEMPHIS,
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
(Activity)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2501
(Union)

Case No. O-AR-462

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Matthew W. Jewett filed on behalf of 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 a five-day suspension imposed upon the grievant for failing to report to duty on time. As his award, the Arbitrator determined that based upon the grievant's prior record and the circumstances of this case, the penalty was appropriate and the grievance was without merit. The Arbitrator therefore denied the grievance.

In its exception, the Union essentially argues that the Arbitrator was confused in understanding the issues in the case, did not address the Union's "determined issues," and did not consider all of the evidence presented by the Union. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, including the Union's contentions, the Authority concludes that the Union's contentions 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 exception constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence and testimony before 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 exception is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY