Rock Island Arsenal and National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-72 (Authority decision, January 28, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied the union's exceptions to the arbitrator's award, leaving the award in place. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a) generally does not extend to an Authority order involving an arbitral award under § 7122 unless it involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

A Rock Island Arsenal employee claimed that he did not receive the priority consideration for an accounting technician vacancy required by an earlier grievance result. The arbitrator found that the employee was considered alone three times before other applicants and that the agency later remedied its initial failure to give adequate reasons for nonselection. He denied the grievance. The Authority held that the union's exceptions merely disputed the arbitrator's reasoning and factual conclusions, which did not establish a defect in the award. It denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; arbitrator's award left in place.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's assessment of the evidence does not establish an award defect.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v07 p755 ]

07:0755(124)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

7 FLRA No. 124

ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL,
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS
Activity

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R7-72
Union

Case No. O-AR-83

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR MILTON O. TALENT FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) /1/
AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART
2425). THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.

ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN
THE GRIEVANT WAS NOT SELECTED TO FILL A GS-5 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
POSITION. ALLEGING THAT THE GRIEVANT DID NOT RECEIVE THE PRIORITY
CONSIDERATION TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED, /2/ THE INSTANT GRIEVANCE WAS
FILED, AND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.

THE ISSUE, AS FRAMED BY THE ARBITRATOR, WAS

WHETHER OR NOT GRIEVANT RECEIVED THE PRIORITY CONSIDERATION THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO, AS A

RESULT OF HIS PRIOR GRIEVANCE, WHEN HE WAS CONSIDERED FOR THE GS-5
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN

POSITION.

IN ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE GRIEVANT
RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR THE POSITION PRIOR TO ANY OTHER APPLICANTS
BEING CONSIDERED. IN FACT, THE ARBITRATOR NOTED THAT THE GRIEVANT WAS
CONSIDERED ALONE AT THREE SEPARATE TIMES FOR THE VACANCY. THUS, THE
ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT

(THE) GRIEVANT RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED AS
A RESULT OF HIS

GRIEVANCE, WHEN HE WAS CONSIDERED FOR THE VACANCY PRIOR TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF ANY OTHER

INDIVIDUAL.

ALTHOUGH THE ARBITRATOR FOUND MERIT IN THE UNION'S CONTENTION THAT
THE ACTIVITY INITIALLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AGENCY REQUIREMENTS AND
PROVIDE THE GRIEVANT WITH "GOOD AND COGENT REASONS" FOR HIS
NONSELECTION, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFICIENCY HAD BEEN REMEDIED AFTER
THE GRIEVANT WAS CONSIDERED THE THIRD TIME. THEREFORE, THE ARBITRATOR
DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION
"WAS MADE CONTRARY TO LAW, RULE, REGULATION AND THE APPLICABLE
NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT," AND THAT "THIS CASE REFLECTS A MORAL INJUSTICE."
IN SUPPORT OF ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION REFERS TO VARIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE ACTIVITY AND PORTIONS OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AND STATES THAT
IT "DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S REASONING" AND THAT HE WAS "IN
ERROR WITH HIS INTERPRETATION AND WITH THE DECISION HE RENDERED." THE
UNION'S EXCEPTIONS DO NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
DEFICIENT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS THAT THE UNION IS
ATTEMPTING TO RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AND
THAT THE THRUST OF THE EXCEPTIONS CONSTITUTE 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., VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL,
PERRY POINT, MARYLAND AND LOCAL 331, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, 3 FLRA NO. 23(1980).

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 28, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES:

(A) EITHER PARTY TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY FILE WITH THE
AUTHORITY AN EXCEPTION

TO ANY ARBITRATOR'S AWARD PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATION (OTHER THAN AN
AWARD RELATING TO A

MATTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7121(F) OF THIS TITLE). IF UPON REVIEW
THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT

THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT--

(1) BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION; OR

(2) ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN
PRIVATE SECTOR

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS;

THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH
APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, OR REGULATIONS.

/2/ AS THE RESULT OF A PRIOR GRIEVANCE, THE GRIEVANT WAS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEXT VACANCY FOR WHICH HE WAS QUALIFIED.