15:0189(30)AR - AFGE Local 2600 and GSA Region 10 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v15 p189 ]
15:0189(30)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 30
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2600
 Union
 
 and
 
 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 REGION 10
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-491
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator John H. Abernathy 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.  /1/
 
    The grievance in this matter was filed in May 1981 under the parties'
 collective bargaining agreement, which had been negotiated under
 provisions of Executive Order No. 11491 (the Order), claiming a
 violation of the agreement and a violation of section 7116(a)(5) and (8)
 of the Statute by the Activity in its denial of official time.  The
 grievance was submitted to arbitration and heard by the Arbitrator in
 November 1982 at which time the Arbitrator noted two significant events:
  the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement by the Agency
 and Union in May 1982 and the signing by the Agency and Union of a
 memorandum of understanding in September 1982 respecting the processing
 of grievances filed prior to the new collective bargaining agreement.
 The Arbitrator also noted the argument of the Activity that the
 grievance was not arbitrable to the extent it claimed a violation of the
 Statute.  It was the Activity's position that the grievance procedure of
 the parties' collective bargaining agreement negotiated under the Order
 applied in this case and the scope of that procedure was limited to the
 interpretation and application of that agreement.  As his award the
 Arbitrator determined that the Activity had not violated the agreement.
 He further essentially determined in agreement with the Activity that
 the grievance procedure of the parties' agreement negotiated under the
 Order applied and that the Union's allegation of a violation of the
 Statute was not covered by that procedure and was accordingly not
 arbitrable.
 
    In its first exception the Union contends that the award is deficient
 to the extent that the Arbitrator found the grievance not to be
 arbitrable.  The Union argues that the intent of the parties in the
 memorandum of understanding was to bring all pending grievances under
 the broad-scope of the Statute.  This exception, however, merely
 constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and
 application of the collective agreement of the parties to find otherwise
 and consequently provides no basis for finding the award deficient.  See
 Letterkenny Army Depot and National Federation of Federal Employees,
 Local 1429, 5 FLRA 272 (1981).
 
    In its