American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1917 and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (Authority decision, September 22, 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 denied a grievance challenging a reprimand for an on-duty fight with another employee. AFGE Local 1917 argued that the arbitrator had disregarded evidence, applied the wrong proof standard, and issued an ambiguous or legally flawed award. The Authority found that most objections sought to relitigate the evidence and that the union had not established reliance on an incorrect legal rule. It denied the exceptions and left the reprimand standing.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; award upholding the reprimand stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator’s evidentiary findings did not show a deficient award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p68 ]

13:0068(15)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 15

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1917, AFL-CIO
(Union)

and

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE
(Activity)

Case No. O-AR-492

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Evelyn Brand 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 concerns the reprimand of the grievant for fighting with another employee while on duty. A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the reprimand was for just and sufficient cause and for such reasons as will promote the efficiency of the Service, as provided in the parties' agreement. The Arbitrator denied the grievance.

In its exceptions, the Union contends that (1) the Arbitrator refused to hear pertinent and material evidence; (2) the award is based on a nonfact in that the Arbitrator ignored certain testimony and accepted other evidence; (3) the award is so ambiguous as to make implementation impossible; (4) the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement in that the Activity did not meet the prescribed burden of proof; and (5) the award is contrary to law, rule or regulation in that the Arbitrator relied on an incorrect rule of law as the basis for her award.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority in this case, including the Union's contentions, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient. As to the Union's first four contentions, it is clear that the Union is attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority since the thrust of the exceptions constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence and testimony before her. Such disagreement does not provide a basis for finding the award deficient. 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); Immigration and Naturalization Service and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 8 FLRA No. 53 (1982). Similarly, with respect to the fifth contention no basis is provided for finding the award contrary to law, rule or regulation because the union fails to establish that the award is expressly based on any rule of law.

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 22, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY