15:0328(69)AR - GSA and AFGE Council 236 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v15 p328 ]
15:0328(69)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 69
 
 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
 Agency
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 236
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-667
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan filed by the Agency 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 concerned the Agency's conduct toward the
 Union's designated representative, a former employee of the Agency who
 had been removed from employment for disorderly conduct while acting as
 a Union official.  The dispute arose when the Agency refused to allow
 the individual, now a non-employee national union representative, access
 to the Agency's premises, and refused to deal with him in this capacity.
 
    The Arbitrator found that the Agency violated the parties' collective
 bargaining agreement by not permitting the representative reasonable
 access to unit employees and by not recognizing him as a representative.
  The Arbitrator therefore directed the Agency to recognize the
 individual as a union representative and permit him to have access to
 unit employees.  The Arbitrator noted, however, that he did not condone
 the individual's prior misconduct and added an admonishment that as a
 Union representative the individual had a responsibility to act in
 accordance with accepted labor relations practices and could not act
 with impunity.
 
    In its exceptions, the Agency argues that the Arbitrator erred in
 concluding that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by not
 permitting the Union representative access to Agency employees;  that
 the Arbitrator's rejection of the Agency's justification for not dealing
 with the Union representative was contrary to law, arbitrary,
 contradictory and otherwise faulty;  and that the Arbitrator's finding
 that the Agency violated the parties' agreement by not recognizing the
 Union representative was beyond the Arbitrator's authority, was based on
 a nonfact, and did not draw its essence from the parties' agreement.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record before the Authority, the
 Authority concludes that the Agency has failed to establish that the
 Arbitrator's award is in any way deficient.  It is clear that the Agency
 is merely attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the
 Authority and that the thrust of the Agency's assertions essentially
 constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's
 findings of fact, his specific reasoning and conclusions, and generally
 with his interpretation and application of the parties' agree