12:0513(97)AR - Federal Election Commission and NTEU Chapter 204 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR

[ v12 p513 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 12 FLRA No. 97
                                            Case No. O-AR-309
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Seymour Strongin 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
    The parties by stipulation submitted to arbitration the following
          Did the Agency violate the provisions of Article XIV, Section
       14B(2) /1/ in failing to promote (the grievant) on or about his
       anniversary date?  In other words, whether or not the employee
       demonstrated the ability to perform at the next highest grade.
       (Footnote added.)
 The Arbitrator essentially determined that there was no basis to find
 that the Activity had violated the agreement, and accordingly as his
 award he denied the grievance.
    In its first exception the Union contends that the Arbitrator
 exceeded his authority by substituting the issue of whether the Agency's
 denial of the grievant's promotion was arbitrary, capricious, or
 inherently unfair or discriminatory for the issue stipulated by the
    The Authority concludes that the Union has not established that the
 Arbitrator exceeded his authority.  As noted the parties stipulated the
 issue for decision to be whether in denying the grievant's career ladder
 promotion, the Activity violated Article XIV, Section 148(2) of the
 agreement.  Contrary to the assertion of the Union, the Authority finds
 that the Arbitrator, in determining that there was no basis on which to
 find a violation of the agreement, resolved precisely the issue
 stipulated by the parties.  See Social Security Administration and
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local No. 1923, 5
 FLRA No. 33 (1981).  In contending that the Arbitrator substituted the
 issue of whether the Agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, unfair,
 or discriminatory, the Union is merely disagreeing with the Arbitrator's
 reasoning and conclusions to find that the Activity had not violated the
 agreement, and such contentions provide no basis for finding the award
 deficient.  See, e.g., Community Services Administration and National
 Council of CSA Locals, American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA No. 32 (1981).
    In its second exception, the Union contends that the award does not
 draw its essence from the parties' agreement.  However, this exception
 represents an attempt by the Union to have its own interpretation of the
 agreement substituted for that of the Arbitrator, and consequently this
 exception merely constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's
 interpretation and application of the agreement provision before him.
 Therefore, no basis is provided for finding that the award does not draw
 its essence from the agreement.  See Department of Health and Human
 Services, Social Security Administration, Louisville, Kentucky District
 and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1790, 10 FLRA No. 73
    Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.  Issued, Washington,
 D.C., August 10, 1983
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
    /1/ Article XIV, Section 14B(2) of the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement pertinently provides:
          (B) Career ladder promotions are not automatic.  However, if
       there is enough work at the next higher grade level to be
       performed, an employee has a non-discretionary right to be
       promoted when the following