12:0509(95)AR - Air Force, Williams AFB, AZ and AFGE Local 1776 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR



[ v12 p509 ]
12:0509(95)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 12 FLRA No. 95
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE,
 ARIZONA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1776
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-217
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Raymond F. Hayes 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.
 
    A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration essentially
 contesting the adequacy of the official position description for
 engineering planning technicians (GS-802-7) at the Activity.  As part of
 the grievance, the Union proposed a substitute position description and
 demanded its implementation.
 
    After an extensive and detailed review of the evidence and testimony
 and analysis of applicable law and regulation, the Arbitrator determined
 that the official position description fulfilled the standard of
 adequacy required by governing law and regulation.  Accordingly, the
 Arbitrator ruled that the position description proposed by the Union was
 not required to be implemented.
 
    In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is contrary to
 law, regulation, and the collective bargaining agreement.  Specifically,
 the Union principally argues that the deficiency of the award is its
 "casual application" of the facts to determine that the official
 position description adequately describes the qualifications required
 for the job and the type of skills needed to perform it.  The Union
 maintains that this determination is contrary to the regulatory
 requirements which call for an accurate description of duties and
 qualifications.  The Union further maintains that because the award is
 contrary to regulation, the award is consequently contrary to the
 agreement.
 
    The Authority concludes the Union has not established that the award
 is contrary to law, regulation, or the agreement.  As noted, the
 Arbitrator carefully considered the regulatory requirements for position
 descriptions and expressly ruled in terms of this case that the official
 position description was adequate.  In contending that the official
 position description was not adequate, the Union has not substantiated
 that the governing regulatory provisions prescribed descriptions of
 duties, qualifications, and skills that unequivocally were not fulfilled
 by the official position description.  Thus, the exceptions merely
 constitute disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and
 reas