Veterans Administration Hospital, Perry Point, Maryland (Activity) and Local 331, American Federation of Government Employees (Union) 

 3 FLRA No. 34
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL,
 PERRY POINT, MARYLAND
 Activity
 
 and
 
 LOCAL 331, AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-55
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR HERBERT N. BERNHARDT FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A)
 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C.
 7122(A)).
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE GRIEVANT, A VIETNAM VETERAN UNDER
 TREATMENT AS A PATIENT AT THE ACTIVITY, WAS ALSO EMPLOYED BY THE
 ACTIVITY AS A NURSING ASSISTANT UNDER A VETERANS READJUSTMENT
 APPOINTMENT.  THE GRIEVANT WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO
 THE COMPLETION OF HIS ONE YEAR PROBATIONARY PERIOD BECAUSE OF AN
 INCIDENT IN WHICH HE USED OBSCENE LANGUAGE WITH A SUPERVISOR AND
 DESTROYED HOSPITAL PROPERTY.
 
    THE GRIEVANT GRIEVED HIS TERMINATION AND THE MATTER WAS ULTIMATELY
 SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.  THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE, FINDING
 THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD "ADEQUATE GROUNDS TO TERMINATE THE GRIEVANT AS A
 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE."
 
    THE UNION FILED AN EXCEPTION TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD UNDER SECTION
 7122(A' OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE /1/
 AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE, 44 F.R.
 444766.  THE AGENCY DID NOT FILE AN OPPOSITION. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE
 AUTHORITY IS WHETHER, ON THE BASIS OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTION, THE
 ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE,
 OR REGULATION, OR ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL
 COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS CASES.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD, THE UNION CONTENDS THE AWARD IS
 DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR "OMITS ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE PRESENTED
 ON CIRCUMSTANCE." IN SUPPORT OF ITS EXCEPTION, THE UNION ASSERTS THE
 GRIEVANT WAS TERMINATED ON THE SAME DAY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE "REMOVAL"
 AND THAT THE DECISION TO TERMINATE WAS MADE BY ONE PERSON ON THE BASIS
 OF A CHARGE BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION POLICE.  FURTHER, THE UNION
 ARGUES THAT THE GRIEVANT'S VETERANS READJUSTMENT APPOINTMENT ENTITLED
 HIM TO MORE CONSIDERATION AND COUNSELING THAN AN ORDINARY PROBATIONER.
 FINALLY, THE UNION ASSERTS THE GRIEVANT SUFFERED FROM "PSYCHOMOTOR
 SEIZURE."
 
    IT IS CLEAR FROM THE UNION'S EXCEPTION THE UNION IS ATTEMPTING TO
 RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AND ITS EXCEPTION
 ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S REASONING AND
 CONCLUSIONS.
 
    THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD WHERE, AS IN THIS
 CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE EXCEPTION CONSTITUTES DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
 REASONING EMPLOYED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE BEFORE
 HIM.  FEDERAL AVIATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL
 AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ALBUQUERQUE AIRWAY FACILITIES SECTOR, SOUTHWEST
 REGION, CASE NO. O-AR-20, 2 FLRA NO. 85(FEB. 21, 1980).  THEREFORE, THE
 UNION'S EXCEPTION TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR
 FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 7122(A) AND SECTION
 2425.3 OF THE AUTHORITY INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 2425.2 OF THE AUTH
 INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS, WE HEREBY SUSTAIN THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 21, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    /1/ 5 U.S.C. SEC. 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 7 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.