General Services Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236 (Authority decision, July 24, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied exceptions 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

GSA barred a former employee, now serving as a national union representative, from its premises and refused to deal with him. An arbitrator found that GSA violated the labor agreement and ordered reasonable access to employees and recognition of the representative. GSA challenged the award, citing the representative's earlier misconduct and alleged errors by the arbitrator. The Authority found the challenges largely disputed the arbitrator's findings and contract interpretation without showing a legal defect. It denied the exceptions and left the award in place, while emphasizing that it did not condone the earlier misconduct.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Review of arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Agency exceptions denied; representative access award upheld.
• Key point: Disagreement with the arbitrator's factual findings and contract reading did not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v15 p328 ]

15:0328(69)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

15 FLRA No. 69

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Agency

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 236
Union

Case No. O-AR-667

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan filed by the Agency 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 concerned the Agency's conduct toward the Union's designated representative, a former employee of the Agency who had been removed from employment for disorderly conduct while acting as a Union official. The dispute arose when the Agency refused to allow the individual, now a non-employee national union representative, access to the Agency's premises, and refused to deal with him in this capacity.

The Arbitrator found that the Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by not permitting the representative reasonable access to unit employees and by not recognizing him as a representative. The Arbitrator therefore directed the Agency to recognize the individual as a union representative and permit him to have access to unit employees. The Arbitrator noted, however, that he did not condone the individual's prior misconduct and added an admonishment that as a Union representative the individual had a responsibility to act in accordance with accepted labor relations practices and could not act with impunity.

In its exceptions, the Agency argues that the Arbitrator erred in concluding that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by not permitting the Union representative access to Agency employees; that the Arbitrator's rejection of the Agency's justification for not dealing with the Union representative was contrary to law, arbitrary, contradictory and otherwise faulty; and that the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by not recognizing the Union representative was beyond the Arbitrator's authority, was based on a nonfact, and did not draw its essence from the parties' agreement.

Upon consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the Authority concludes that the Agency has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is in any way deficient. It is clear that the Agency is merely attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and that the thrust of the Agency's assertions essentially constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact, his specific reasoning and conclusions, and generally with his interpretation and application of the parties' agreement. Consequently, the exceptions do not provide any basis for finding the award deficient. See Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2052, 13 FLRA No. 27 (1984).

Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied. /1/

Issued, Washington, D.C., July 24, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ In denying the exceptions, the Authority emphasizes that such denial shall not be construed as condonation of the Union representative's past misconduct and also endorses the Arbitrator's admonishment that the representative cannot act "with impunity." See Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, Missouri and American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO), Local No. 3399, 14 FLRA No. 20 (1984).