13:0108(27)AR - Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and AFGE Local 2052, Petersburg, Virginia -- 1983 FLRAdec AR



[ v13 p108 ]
13:0108(27)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 13 FLRA No. 27
 
 FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
 PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA
 (Activity)
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, PETERSBURG,
 VIRGINIA
 (Union)
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-550
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator E. C. Griffith 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 suspension of the grievant
 for three days because of his alleged use of abusive and obscene
 language toward a supervisory official.  The issue submitted to
 arbitration was whether the suspension was for just and sufficient
 cause.  The Arbitrator determined, among other things, that the grievant
 violated applicable rules and regulations of the Activity;  that the
 grievant failed to seek redress within the orderly processes of the
 parties' agreement, but resorted to conduct that subjected him to
 disciplinary action;  and that the Activity did not violate the
 provision in the parties' agreement pertaining to suspensions.  The
 Arbitrator concluded that just and sufficient cause had been established
 for the grievant's suspension.  Accordingly, as his award, the
 Arbitrator denied the grievance.
 
    In its exceptions, the Union essentially contends that (1) the award
 violates, and does not draw its essence from, the provision of the
 parties' agreement pertaining to suspensions;  (2) the Arbitrator
 exceeded his authority by in effect modifying that provision;  (3) the
 award is based on a nonfact because the Arbitrator erred in finding that
 the Activity's rules of conduct were applicable;  (4) the award violates
 the grievant's statutory rights because the Arbitrator failed to give
 due consideration to the Union's arguments that the grievant was
 disciplined primarily for his union activities and was exercising his
 protected representational rights in this case, i.e., representing
 himself in the incident that gave rise to the suspension;  and (5) the
 Arbitrator's ruling on the fairness of the discipline is erroneous.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
 including the contentions of the parties, the Authority concludes that
 the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is in any
 way deficient.  It is clear that the Union is merely attempting to
 relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and that the
 thrust of the Union's asse