16:0575(81)AR - Keesler AFB and AFGE Local 2670 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR



[ v16 p575 ]
16:0575(81)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 16 FLRA No. 81
 
 KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2670
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-505
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Bernard Marcus 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 Union filed a grievance that was submitted to arbitration
 claiming that the Activity's implementation of the Agency's civilian
 potential appraisal system violated the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement.  Based on his interpretation and application of the parties'
 collective bargaining agreement, the Arbitrator determined that the
 Activity's implementation did not violate either the express terms of
 the parties' agreement or regulatory provisions incorporated in the
 agreement.  Accordingly, as his award the Arbitrator denied the
 grievance.
 
    In one of its exceptions the Union contends that the award is
 contrary to section 7116(a)(7) of the Statute.  /1/ In support of this
 exception, the Union essentially argues that the Activity's
 implementation of the appraisal system was in conflict with the parties'
 pre-existing collective bargaining agreement and that by denying the
 grievance, the Arbitrator therefore improperly upheld the Activity's
 actions in violation of section 7116(a)(7).
 
    The Authority concludes that this exception provides no basis for
 finding the award deficient.  To the extent the Union is contending in
 this exception that the award is contrary to the Statute because the
 Arbitrator failed to find the Activity's actions violative of the
 collective bargaining agreement, the Authority has repeatedly held that
 such a contention constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the
 arbitrator's interpretation and application of the agreement and
 provides no basis for finding the award deficient.  See, e.g.,
 Philadelphia Regional Office, District Office Operations, Social
 Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, Local 3186, 15 FLRA No. 41 (1984);  Immigration and
 Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, U.S. Government and
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 1656, 7 FLRA 549
 (1982).  Similarly, the Union's contention that the award is deficient
 because the Activity's actions allegedly constitute an unfair labor
 practice under section 7116(a)(7) also provides no basis for finding the
 award deficient.  In Philadelphia Regional Office, 15 FLRA No. 41, at 2,
 the Authority held that when an employee or a union files a grievance
 rather than an unfair labor practice charge and the grievance is based
 on claimed violations of the collective bargaining agreement rather than
 provisions of the Statute, the union is thereby precluded from
 contending as a basis for finding the resulting arbitration award
 deficient that the agency's disputed actions constitute an unfair labor
 practice under the Statute.  In terms of this case, the grievance
 submitted to and resolved by the Arbitrator was whether the Activity's
 implementation of the civilian potential appraisal system was in
 violation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.  As noted,
 the Arbitrator found no violation of the agreement and denied the
 grievance.  Consequently, the Union is precluded from contending that
 the Arbitrator's award is contrary to section 7116(a)(7) of the Statute
 because the Activity allegedly implemented regulations in conflict with
 the parties' pre-existing agreement.  See id.  Thus, the Union's
 exception fails to establish that the award is contrary to section
 7116(a)(7).
 
    In its other exception the Union essentially contends that the award
 is deficient as a result of the Arbitrator's interpretation of the term
 "appropriate authorities" from the collective bargaining agreement.
 However, this constitutes nothing more than