Department of the Army, Troop Support Agency, Midwest Commissary Field Office, Fort Riley, Kansas (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2324, Fort Riley, Kansas (Union)

 



[ v08 p258 ]
08:0258(57)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 57
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 TROOP SUPPORT AGENCY,
 MIDWEST COMMISSARY FIELD
 OFFICE, FORT RILEY, KANSAS
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 2324, FORT RILEY,
 KANSAS
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-230
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR STANFORD C. MADDEN FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A)
 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. SEC.
 7122(A) (THE STATUTE) AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425).  THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES WERE BEFORE
 HIM FOR RESOLUTION AS A RESULT OF THE GRIEVANCE FILED IN THIS CASE:
 
    1.  WHETHER THE AGENCY ASSIGNED WORK EQUITABLY AMONG WAE
 (WHEN-ACTUALLY-EMPLOYED) PERSONNEL AND PART-TIME PERSONNEL WHO HAVE
 THE SAME JOB DESCRIPTION.
 
    2.  WHETHER WOMEN ARE NOT ASSIGNED CERTAIN TASKS TO WHOM ONLY MALE
 PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED.
 
    3.  WHETHER THE GRIEVANT'S JOB DESCRIPTION IS ACCURATE AND WHETHER
 THE STANDARDS OF
 
    PERFORMANCE APPLY TO THE JOB WHICH GRIEVANT IS PERFORMING.
 
    IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING HIS AWARD THE ARBITRATOR DISCUSSED
 TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE THREE
 ISSUES AND CONCLUDED THAT "(U)NDER THE ISSUES AS DEFINED BY THE PARTIES'
 SUBMISSION AGREEMENT, NO VIOLATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT WAS PROVED." ACCORDINGLY, HE DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    THE UNION TAKES EXCEPTION TO THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
 TO EACH OF THE THREE ISSUES.  IN ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION STATES THAT
 THE ARBITRATOR "DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS" AND THEREFORE THE
 GRIEVANT DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR HEARING, THAT THE ARBITRATOR "FAILED TO
 CONSIDER EVIDENCE" ELICITED FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OF THE WITNESSES,
 AND THAT THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY BY REFERRING TO THE CIVIL
 SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978.  NONE OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS PROVIDES A
 BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT.  IT IS CLEAR FROM THE UNION'S
 EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS THAT THE UNION IS ATTEMPTING TO
 RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AND THAT THE
 THRUST OF THE EXCEPTIONS CONSTITUTES DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S
 REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BEFORE
 HIM, WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT.
 E.G., ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS AND NATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-72, 7 FLRA NO. 124 (1982).