13:0068(15)AR - AFGE Local 1917 and INS -- 1983 FLRAdec AR



[ v13 p68 ]
13:0068(15)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 13 FLRA No. 15
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1917, AFL-CIO
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
 SERVICE
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-492
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Evelyn Brand filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
    The dispute in this matter concerns the reprimand of the grievant for
 fighting with another employee while on duty.  A grievance was filed and
 submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the reprimand was for
 just and sufficient cause and for such reasons as will promote the
 efficiency of the Service, as provided in the parties' agreement.  The
 Arbitrator denied the grievance.
 
    In its exceptions, the Union contends that (1) the Arbitrator refused
 to hear pertinent and material evidence;  (2) the award is based on a
 nonfact in that the Arbitrator ignored certain testimony and accepted
 other evidence;  (3) the award is so ambiguous as to make implementation
 impossible;  (4) the award does not draw its essence from the collective
 bargaining agreement in that the Activity did not meet the prescribed
 burden of proof;  and (5) the award is contrary to law, rule or
 regulation in that the Arbitrator relied on an incorrect rule of law as
 the basis for her award.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority
 in this case, including the Union's contentions, the Authority concludes
 that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient.  As
 to the Union's first four contentions, it is clear that the Union is
 attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority
 since the thrust of the exceptions constitutes nothing more than
 disagreement with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions based on
 the evidence and testimony before her.  Such disagreement does not
 provide a basis for finding the award deficient.  E.g., Supervisor of
 Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, United States Navy and Local R4-2,
 National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), 5 FLRA No. 29
 (1981);  Immigration and Naturalization Service and American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 8 FLRA No. 53 (1982).  Similarly, with
 respect to the fifth contention no basis is provided for finding the
 award contrary to law, rule or regulation because the union fails to
 establish that the award is expressly based on any rule of law.
 
    Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.  Issued, Washington,
 D.C., September 22, 1983