10:0055(14)AR - Marine Corps, Logistics Base, Barstow and AFGE Local 1482 -- 1982 FLRAdec AR



[ v10 p55 ]
10:0055(14)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 14
 
 U.S. MARINE CORPS,
 LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1482
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-260
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR ROBERT M. LEVENTHAL 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 GRIEVANT WAS ISSUED A
 PROPOSED SUSPENSION FROM DUTY FOR FIVE DAYS FOR LEAVING HIS WORKSITE
 WITHOUT PERMISSION.  LATER, THE ACTIVITY REDUCED THE PROPOSED SUSPENSION
 TO THREE DAYS.  THE GRIEVANT CONTENDED THAT THIS WAS TOO SEVERE AND THAT
 THE ACTIVITY SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICIAL
 APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER THAT THE GRIEVANT NOT BE SUSPENDED
 AT ALL BUT RATHER BE CHARGED WITH 30 MINUTES OF ANNUAL LEAVE.
 
    THE ARBITRATOR FRAMED THE ISSUE TO BE:
 
    1.  DID BASE MANAGEMENT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT WHEN IT IMPOSED
 
    A THREE DAY SUSPENSION ON (THE GRIEVANT) FOR ALLEGEDLY LEAVING THE
 JOB DURING WORKING HOURS
 
    WITHOUT PROPER PERMISSION?
 
    2.  IF SO, WHAT SHALL THE REMEDY BE?
 
    THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT WHEN IT IMPOSED A THREE DAY SUSPENSION ON THE GRIEVANT AND
 THAT SUCH ACTION WAS PROPER AND WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY THE
 DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINE FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.  THE ARBITRATOR ALSO
 FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE DIVISION
 DIRECTOR AND THE COMMANDING GENERAL WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANSWERING
 THE GRIEVANCE WERE BOUND BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PERSON APPOINTED
 TO INVESTIGATE THE GRIEVANCE.  THEREFORE, HE DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    AS ITS EXCEPTIONS, THE UNION ALLEGES THAT THE ARBITRATOR "DID NOT
 DRAW THE PROPER CONCLUSION FROM OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND
 THAT HE BASED HIS AWARD ON NONFACT." IN SUPPORT, THE UNION ARGUES, AS IT
 DID BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR, THAT UNDER THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT THE
 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PERSON DESIGNATED TO INVESTIGATE THE GRIEVANCE
 SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND THEREFORE THE GRIEVANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
 SUSPENDED.
 
    THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE ARBITRATOR'S
 AWARD DEFICIENT.  THE ARBITRATOR EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THE OFFICIALS
 RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE FINAL DECISION ON A GRIEVANCE FILED UNDER THE
 TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT "ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE BOUND BY THE
 RECOMMENDA