AFGE Local 1178 and U.S. Army Quartermaster Center and Fort Lee (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

An arbitrator found that a labor relations officer could attend a first step grievance meeting as an adviser under the parties’ agreement. AFGE Local 1178 argued that the award misread the agreement, overlooked facts, and favored management. The Authority found that these objections amounted to disagreement with the arbitrator’s reasoning and evidence assessment. It denied the exceptions and left the award standing.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; grievance meeting award stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator’s reading of the agreement did not establish an award defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p598 ]

12:0598(109)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 109

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1178, AFL-CIO
(Union)

and

U.S. ARMY QUARTERMASTER
CENTER AND FORT LEE,
FORT LEE, VIRGINIA
(Activity)

Case No. O-AR-474

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Eckehard Muessig 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 before the Arbitrator involved the Union's grievance concerning the attendance of a labor relations officer at a first step grievance meeting held pursuant to the applicable provision of the negotiated grievance procedure of the parties' agreement. The Arbitrator found that in the absence of language to the contrary personnel office officials such as the labor relations officer could be present as advisers at grievance meetings under the parties' agreement.

In its exceptions, the Union contends that the award does not draw its essence from the parties' agreement; (2) is not based on all the facts and (3) is biased and partial toward management.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, including the parties' contentions, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient. It is clear that the Union is merely attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and that the thrust of the exceptions constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence before him. Such disagreement does not provide a basis for finding the award deficient. E.g., Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illinois and National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-72, 7 FLRA No. 124 (1982); U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 900, 10 FLRA No. 88 (1982).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1983

Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY