American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236 and General Services Administration, National Capital Region (Authority decision, June 20, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority disposed of exceptions to an arbitration award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review of an arbitration order is generally excluded by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) unless it involves an unfair labor practice under § 7118. This decision does not address an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

A GSA employee received a three day suspension after failing to report damage to a government vehicle assigned to him. An arbitrator found that the employee knew of the damage and denied the grievance. The union challenged the evidence and the arbitrator’s reasoning. The Authority held those arguments did not show a deficient award and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exception review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; suspension grievance award remained in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator’s fact findings did not establish a reviewable defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p236 ]

12:0236(53)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 53

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 236
(Union)

and

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
(Activity)

Case No. O-AR-530

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Jack A. Warshaw 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 suspension of the grievant for three days because of his failure to report damage to a Government vehicle during the period it was assigned to him, as required by an Agency regulation. Noting that this was a case where resolution necessarily depended upon circumstantial evidence since there were no eyewitnesses to the cause of the damage, the Arbitrator found that the grievant was aware of the damage and failed to report it as required. The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency's action was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that just cause had been established for the grievant's suspension. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

In its exceptions, the Union essentially argues that the Arbitrator based his award on a finding of substantial evidence to support the Agency's action when, in the Union's view, no evidence was presented that the grievant violated the regulation involved. Thus, the Union's arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and his specific reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence and testimony before him. Such assertions do not provide a basis for finding an award deficient. E.g., United States Army Missile Materiel Readiness Command (USAMIRCOM) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858, AFL-CIO, 2 FLRA 432 (1980); Veterans Administration Regional Office and Service Employees International Union, Local 556, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA No. 59 (1981).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY