13:0070(16)AR - Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District and NFFE Local No. 1124 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR



[ v13 p70 ]
13:0070(16)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 13 FLRA No. 16
 
 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
 NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 1124
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-265
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Robert W. Foster 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 arose as the result of the announcement of
 a vacancy in a position of lock and dam equipment mechanic.  The
 grievant applied for the position, but she was only rated qualified and
 was not referred to the selecting official.  She filed a grievance which
 was ultimately submitted to arbitration.
 
    The Arbitrator stated the substantive issue to be whether the
 grievant had been harassed and discriminated against because of her sex
 and, if so, had this caused the grievant not to receive proper
 consideration for promotion.  After a careful consideration of the
 evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Arbitrator determined
 that the grievant had not been denied proper consideration for promotion
 because of discrimination.  In conjunction with this determination, the
 Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the Activity had failed
 to produce requested documents.  The Arbitrator ruled that management
 had provided the Union with everything available that had been requested
 and that documents no longer available had not been improperly
 destroyed.  Accordingly, as his award the Arbitrator denied the
 grievance.
 
    In its first exception the Union contends that the Activity refused
 to produce needed evidence and that the Arbitrator's ruling in this
 respect was harmful error.  The Authority concludes that this exception
 provides no basis for finding the award deficient.  As noted, the
 Arbitrator expressly rejected this contention in ruling that management
 had provided the Union with everything requested that was available, and
 the Union's unsubstantiated allegation to the contrary as repeated in
 its exception fails to establish that the award is deficient.
 
    In its second exception the Union contends that the Arbitrator was
 biased or partial.  However, this exception is totally devoid of any
 substantiation and provides no basis for finding the award deficient.
 Department of the Army, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air
 Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and American
 Federation of Government Employees, Local 2022, 7 FLRA No. 6 (1981).
 
    In its third exception the Union contends that the award does not
 draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement.  In
 support the Union essentially argues that the Arbitrator erroneously
 framed the issue presented and that the Arbitrator made numerous errors.
  The Authority concludes that this exception provides no basis for
 finding the award deficient.  The Union fails to establish that the
 Arbitrator erroneously framed the issue presented.  With no apparent
 joint stipulation of the issue submitted to the Arbitrator, the
 Arbitrator appropriately determined the issue to be heard and the award
 is directly responsive to and properly confined to precisely that issue.
  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 (1982).  Similarly, the
 Union's assertion that the Arbitrator erred in numerous respects
 constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's
 reasoning and conclusions and an attempt to relitigate the merits of
 this case before the Authority and fails to establish that the award
 does not draw its essence from the agreement.  See, e.g., Department of
 the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service,