---

 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. 
 
 
 

---