14:0497(79)AR - Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point, NC and IAM Local Lodge 2297 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR
[ v14 p497 ]
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. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 12 FLRA No. 116 (1983). Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 11, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The issue of whether the grievant's termination during his probationary period was grievable and arbitrable was not raised before the Arbitrator or the Authority. Therefore, and in view of our disposition of the merits of the Union's exception, it is not necessary for the Authority to address the applicability in this case of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 709 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1983), or the Authority's recent decision in U.S. Department of Labor, Labor-Management Services Administration, Cleveland, Ohio and National Union of Compliance Officers, 13 FLRA No. 109 (1984).