10:0507(88)AR - Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center and AFGE Local 900 -- 1982 FLRAdec AR



[ v10 p507 ]
10:0507(88)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 88
 
 U.S. ARMY RESERVE
 COMPONENTS PERSONNEL
 AND ADMINISTRATION CENTER
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 900
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-384
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR GERALD COHEN 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 DENIAL OF EIGHT HOURS OF
 OVERTIME WORK TO THE GRIEVANT.  THE GRIEVANT WAS EMPLOYED IN THE DATA
 MANAGEMENT SECTION, AND ON THE DAY IN DISPUTE EIGHT HOURS OF OVERTIME
 WERE AVAILABLE IN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SECTION, BUT REQUESTED THE
 OVERTIME IN THE CODING SECTION.  BECAUSE SHE HAD REFUSED THE OVERTIME IN
 HER OWN SECTION, SHE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO WORK OVERTIME IN THE CODING
 SECTION.  A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED AND SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION PROTESTING
 THE DENIAL OF OVERTIME WORK.
 
    THE ARBITRATOR STATED THE ISSUE TO BE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED
 THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINED
 THAT MANAGEMENT'S ACTIONS IN DENYING THE OVERTIME TO THE GRIEVANT WERE
 FULLY CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE XII OF THE AGREEMENT RELATING TO OVERTIME.
  IN ADDITION, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT NO PAST PRACTICE IN FAVOR OF
 THE GRIEVANT'S CLAIM HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  ACCORDINGLY, AS HIS AWARD
 THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR FAILED TO
 RESOLVE THE ISSUE SUBMITTED OF THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE
 OVERTIME ARTICLE OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT AND ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
 A PAST PRACTICE IN FAVOR OF THE GRIEVANCE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.
 HOWEVER, THE EXCEPTION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT.
  AS NOTED, THE ARBITRATOR RESOLVED PRECISELY THE ISSUE OF THE
 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF ARTICLE XII OF THE AGREEMENT RELATING
 TO OVERTIME WHEN HE EXPRESSLY DETERMINED THAT MANAGEMENT'S ACTIONS WERE
 FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THAT PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT.  FURTHERMORE,
 DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S REJECTION OF A CLAIMED PAST PRACTICE
 PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT.  E.G., INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE AND NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 22, 8 FLRA NO. 58(1982).  ACCORDINGLY, THE
 UNION'S EXCEPTION IS DENIED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 23, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRM