American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2206 (Union) and Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Southeastern Program Service Center (Activity) 



[ v06 p568 ]
06:0568(103)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 103
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-180
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR GEORGE V. EYRAUD, JR., FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION
 7122(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5
 U.S.C. 7122(A)) (THE STATUTE).
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE
 WHEN THE GRIEVANT WAS CHARGED 45 MINUTES ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE (AWOL) BY
 HER MODULE MANAGER.  A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED OVER THE AWOL CHARGE AND THE
 MATTER WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.
 
    THE ARBITRATOR STATED THE ISSUES BEFORE HIM AS FOLLOWS:
 
    1.  DID THE EMPLOYER FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES INCLUDING THE PERSONNEL
 GUIDE FOR
 
    SUPERVISORS, FLEXI-TIME HANDBOOK, AND THE MASTER AGREEMENT IN
 CHARGING GRIEVANT WITH 45
 
    MINUTES AWOL FOR HER ABSENCE FROM 10:15 UNTIL 10:55 A.M. ON MAY 16,
 1980?
 
    2.  DID GRIEVANT HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT (AN EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT
 AND TRAINING SECTION
 
    SPECIALIST) WAS HER SUPERVISOR WITH LEAVE APPROVING AUTHORITY AND
 THAT (THE SPECIALIST) HAD
 
    THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW HERE TO MAKE UP HER FORTY MINUTE ABSENCE BY
 WORKING FROM 3:55
 
    P.M. UNTIL 4:35 P.M. ON MAY 16, 1980?
 
    3.  DID THE ADDITIONAL TIME THAT GRIEVANT WORKED AFTER HER TOUR OF
 DUTY ENDED AT 3:55
 
    P.M. ON MAY 16, 1980, CONSTITUTE OVERTIME AS DEFINED BY THE MASTER
 AGREEMENT?
 
    IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING HIS AWARD THE ARBITRATOR DISCUSSED
 VARIOUS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AND, AS HIS AWARD, DENIED THE GRIEVANCE,
 MAKING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
 
    1.  MANAGEMENT DID FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES IN CHARGING GRIEVANT WITH
 45 MINUTES AWOL FOR
 
    HER ABSENCE FROM 10:15 A.M. UNTIL 10:55 A.M. ON MAY 16, 1980.
 
    2.  GRIEVANT COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT (THE EMPLOYEE
 DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING
 
    SECTION SPECIALIST) WAS HER SUPERVISOR AND THAT (THE SPECIALIST) HAD
 THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW
 
    HER TO MAKE UP HER FORTY MINUTE ABSENCE BY WORKING FROM 3:55 P.M.
 UNTIL 4:35 P.M. ON MAY 16,
 
    1980.
 
    3.  THE ADDITIONAL TIME THAT GRIEVANT WORKED AFTER HER TOUR OF DUTY
 ENDED AT 3:55 P.M. ON
 
    MAY 16, 1980, DID NOT CONSTITUTE OVERTIME AS DEFINED BY THE MASTER
 AGREEMENT.
 
    THE UNION FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD UNDER SECTION
 7122(A) OF THE STATUTE /1/ AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425).  THE ACTIVITY FILED AN OPPOSITION.  /2/
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTIONS, THE UNION CONTENDS THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO 5
 U.S.C. 2301(B)(3) AND 2302(B)(11) /3/ AND THAT "THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE
 ARBITRATOR'S DECISION ARE CONCEDEDLY ERRONEOUS AND, IN EFFECT, A GROSS
 MISTAKE OF RELEVANT FACTS BUT FOR WHICH A DIFFERENT RESULT WOULD HAVE
 BEEN REACHED." IN SUPPORT OF THESE EXCEPTIONS THE UNION MAKES EXTENSIVE
 REFERENCES TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, VARIOUS REGULATIONS, AND EVIDENCE
 AND TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR IN THE CASE.
 
    THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
 DEFICIENT.  THE UNION HAS NOT SHOWN HOW THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD FINDING
 THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD PROPERLY CHARGED THE GRIEVANT AWOL FOR HER ABSENCE
 ON THE DAY IN QUESTION IS IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO THE CITED SECTIONS
 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.  IT IS CLEAR FROM A FULL
 EXAMINATION OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS THAT THE UNION IS IN EFFECT
 DISAGREEING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH HIS
 REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS IN ARRIVING AT HIS AWARD, AND IS ATTEMPTING TO
 RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY.  SUCH
 ASSERTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR FINDING AN AWARD DEFICIENT.  DEPARTMENT
 OF THE AIR FORCE, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL BRANCH, CARSWELL AIR FORCE BASE,
 TEXAS AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1364, 5
 FLRA NO. 7(1981);  NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2284, 3 FLRA NO.
 35(1980).  THEREFORE, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR
 FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) AND SECTION 2425.3 OF
 THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DENIED.
 ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 18, 1981
 
                       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 RECOMME