10:0053(13)AR - Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia and Tidewater Virginia FEMT Council -- 1982 FLRAdec AR



[ v10 p53 ]
10:0053(13)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 13
 
 NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
 COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-255
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR J. HARVEY DALY FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) AND
 PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.  THE AGENCY DID NOT
 FILE AN OPPOSITION.
 
    THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN THE UNION REQUESTED EIGHT HOURS
 OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR 75 UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND A LABOR
 RELATIONS SEMINAR CONDUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY'S REGIONAL OFFICE.  THE
 ACTIVITY DENIED THE REQUEST AS UNREASONABLE AND ALLOWED UP TO FOUR HOURS
 EXCUSED TIME FOR ONLY FIVE REPRESENTATIVES.  THE UNION FILED A GRIEVANCE
 WHICH WENT TO ARBITRATION ON THE ISSUE:
 
    DID THE NAVY VIOLATE THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE CONTROLLING
 LABOR AGREEMENT WHEN IT
 
    LIMITED THE NUMBER OF TRAINEES TO A FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 TRAINING SESSION TO 5
 
    MEMBERS FOR A PERIOD OF 4 HOURS, INSTEAD OF THE UNION'S REQUESTED
 NUMBER OF 75 MEMBERS FOR 8
 
    HOURS.
 
    THE ARBITRATOR STATED THAT HIS DECISION TURNED ON THE INTERPRETATION
 OF ARTICLE 22, SECTION 4 OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED THAT A
 "REASONABLE NUMBER" OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE EXCUSED FOR
 TRAINING IF THE TRAINING WOULD BE OF MUTUAL CONCERN TO THE ACTIVITY AND
 THE UNION, AND THAT EXCUSED TIME WOULD NOT NORMALLY EXCEED EIGHT HOURS
 PER INDIVIDUAL PER YEAR.  HE DISALLOWED THE UNION'S CONTENTION THAT PAST
 PRACTICE SUPPORTED ITS REQUEST AND HELD THAT 75 EMPLOYEES WAS "FAR IN
 EXCESS OF ANY NUMBER ESTABLISHED BY PAST PRACTICE." HE NOTED THAT THE
 TRAINING SESSION WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
 THAT ONLY FIVE UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE EMPOWERED TO FILE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGES.  HE CONCLUDED THAT "THE 'REASONABLE NUMBER' TO BE
 TRAINED, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LABOR AGREEMENT WOULD BE THOSE FIVE
 PEOPLE." HE ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME NEEDED FOR TRAINING
 OF MUTUAL CONCERN WAS FOUR HOURS INSTEAD OF EIGHT.  FINDING NO VIOLATION
 OF THE AGREEMENT, HE DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    AS ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION ALLEGES THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE IT
 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND "IS NOT WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF
 FPM 990-2 (ADMINISTRATIVE EXCUSALS) NOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 22,
 SECTION 4." THE UNION CONTENDS THE ARBITRATOR "HAS CHANGED THE INTENT
 AND MEANING OF