10:0310(57)AR - AFGE Local 3272 and SSA Areas VIII and XIV, Chicago Region, Branch Office, Holland, MI -- 1982 FLRAdec AR



[ v10 p310 ]
10:0310(57)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 57
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 3272
 Union
 
 and
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 AREAS VIII & XIV, CHICAGO
 REGION, BRANCH OFFICE,
 HOLLAND, MICHIGAN
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-205
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR SAMUEL S. SHAW 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 FILED AN
 OPPOSITION.
 
    THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER CONCERNS THE SEPARATION OF THE GRIEVANT
 DURING HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD.  A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED PROTESTING THE
 SEPARATION THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.
 
    ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED, THE ARBITRATOR
 CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT MANAGEMENT'S APPRAISAL OF THE
 GRIEVANT'S COMPETENCE AND PROGRESS AS NOT WARRANTING HER CONTINUED
 EMPLOYMENT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR DISCRIMINATORY.  THEREFORE, AS
 HIS AWARD ON THE MERITS THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD, THE UNION PRINCIPALLY CONTENDS THAT
 THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY IN ITS SEPARATION ACTION
 VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ARBITRATOR WAS REQUIRED
 TO OVERRULE THE GRIEVANT'S SEPARATION.  SPECIFICALLY, THE UNION CONTENDS
 THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE PRIVACY ACT BY MAINTAINING ILLEGAL
 RECORDS AND DATA ON THE GRIEVANT'S WORK PERFORMANCE AND VIOLATED
 PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE BY IMPLEMENTING NEW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
 THE GRIEVANT WITHOUT NOTIFYING AND BARGAINING WITH THE UNION AND BY
 HOLDING A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE UNION.
 
    THE UNION IN THESE EXCEPTIONS HAS PROVIDED NO BASIS ON WHICH TO FIND
 THE AWARD DEFICIENT.  THE UNION HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN WHAT MANNER
 DOCUMENTATION OF THE GRIEVANT'S PERFORMANCE DURING HER PROBATIONARY
 PERIOD CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT.  MOREOVER, THIS
 ARGUMENT WAS MADE TO THE ARBITRATOR AND HE EXPRESSLY DETERMINED THAT THE
 PROPRIETY OF THE GREIVANT'S SEPARATION WAS ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED WITHOUT
 REFERENCE TO ANY RECORDS OR DATA THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PROCEDURALLY
 DEFICIENT.  LIKEWISE THE UNION HAS NOT ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF
 DETERMINING THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE THAT
 THE ARBITRATOR, IN DENYING THE GRIEVANCE, SANCTIONED VIOLATIONS BY THE
 ACTIVITY OF PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE CONSTITUTING UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICES.  THE UNION'S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF CERTA