17:0315(44)AR - Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer District, New Orleans, LA and NFFE Local 1124 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR



[ v17 p315 ]
17:0315(44)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 44
 
 CORPS OF ENGINEERS
 U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,
 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1124
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-673
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to a clarified
 award of Arbitrator John F. Caraway 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 concerns the Arbitrator's clarification of
 his award.  The issue submitted to arbitration was whether there was
 just cause for the Activity's suspension of the grievant for two days
 for disruptive conduct.  The Arbitrator determined that there were
 mitigating circumstances involved and concluded that while the Activity
 did not have just cause to suspend the grievant, it had just cause to
 issue a "letter of warning" for the misconduct.  The Arbitrator
 therefore essentially directed the Activity to rescind the suspension
 and place a "letter of warning" in the grievant's official personnel
 folder (OPF).  The Activity subsequently requested the Arbitrator to
 clarify the intent of his award, pointing out that under the pertinent
 provision of the parties' agreement, a "letter of warning" could not be
 placed in an employee's OPF and that a "letter of reprimand" could be so
 filed.  In reply, the Arbitrator advised the parties that the intent of
 his award was that a "letter of reprimand" be issued and placed in the
 grievant's personnel folder.
 
    In its first two exceptions, the Union contends that the Arbitrator's
 award as clarified is contrary to law and the parties' agreement and
 that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority.  More specifically, the
 Union argues that under sections 7121 and 7122 of the Statute and a
 corresponding provision of the agreement, the Arbitrator's award was
 final when issued, subject only to subsequent action by the Authority
 upon the filing of exceptions by a party to the case, and, therefore,
 that the Arbitrator was without authority to clarify the award once it
 was issued.  However, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed
 to establish that the Arbitrator's award as clarified is deficient as
 alleged.  Neither section 7121 nor section 7122 prohibits the correction
 or clarification of an award by an arbitrator subsequent to its
 issuance.  Additionally, the Union has failed to establish that there
 was any express limitation in the parties' collective bargaining
 agreeme