14:0497(79)AR - Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point, NC and IAM Local Lodge 2297 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v14 p497 ]
14:0497(79)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 14 FLRA No. 79
 
 NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY,
 CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 2297
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-440
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator Hoyt N. Wheeler 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 arose when the Activity separated the
 grievant during his probationary period after a number of efforts to
 assign him to work he could perform without also experiencing discomfort
 from fiberglass or fumes proved unsuccessful.  The issue before the
 Arbitrator was whether the grievant was properly discharged in
 accordance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement and
 applicable regulations.  /1/
 
    The Arbitrator essentially found that the Activity's separation of
 the grievant was proper under the circumstances and, further, that the
 Activity had applied the regulations pertaining to job related injury
 situations, which were relied upon by the Union, "fairly and equitably"
 as required by the parties' agreement.  The Arbitrator concluded that
 the Activity had not violated the agreement and therefore denied the
 grievance.
 
    In its exception, the Union alleges that the award is contrary to
 law, rule or regulation.  In support of its exception, the Union
 essentially reiterates the same arguments which it made before the
 Arbitrator as to what constitutes fair and equitable application of the
 regulations relied upon in the grievant's case and asserts that the
 Arbitrator erred by finding otherwise.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
 the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the
 award is contrary to law, rule or regulation.  It is clear that the
 Union is merely seeking to relitigate the merits of the case before the
 Authority since the thrust of the Union's exception constitutes nothing
 more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and
 application of the "fairly and equitably" standard set forth in the
 parties' agreement, as well as with his reasoning and conclusions in
 resolving the issue before him.  It is well-established that such
 disagreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient.  E.g.,
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1210 and Immigration
 and Naturalization Service, 8 FLRA No. 17 (1982);  U.S. De