24:0442(47)AR - HUD and AFGE Local No. 3412 -- 1986 FLRAdec AR

 24 FLRA No. 47
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 
 AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
 Agency
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL NO. 3412
    Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1124
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Alred J. Goodman files 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 Union filed an opposition.
 
                  II.  BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
 
    The grievance in this case concerns the Agency's implementation of
 space reductions and alterations in its Jacksonville office.  As the
 office alterations began, the parties met to netotiate appropriate
 arrangements for bargaining unit employees adversely affected by the
 alterations.  When management declared most of the Union's proposals
 were not negotiable and proceeded with the alterations, the Union filed
 a grievance claiming management violated Article 36 and Article 3,
 Section 3.01 and 3.08 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
 The dispute was submitted to arbitration where the parties could not
 agree on a stipulation of the issues.  The Arbitrator framed the issues
 before him as follows:
 
       Did Management violate the HUD-AFGE Agreement by failing to
       bargain in good faith and by violating Article 36;  Article 3,
       Sections 3.01 and 3.08;  Article 5, Section 5.02;  the Space
       Management Handbook;  and other regulations?
 
    In framing the issues to be resolved, the Arbitrator explained that
 in its grievance the Union specifically alleged a violation of Article
 36 of the agreement and that Article 36 made pertinent the Agency's
 space management handbook, including provisions for acoustic screens.
 After considering the evidence and testimony, including testimony by
 management's director of administrative services on the use of acoustic
 screens under the space management handbook and testimony confirming
 management's offer during negotiations to use additional partitions, the
 Arbitrator ruled that management violated Article 36 of the agreement
 because acoustic screens had not been provided in accordance with the
 space management handbook.  Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator
 ordered as follows:
 
       Management will survey all floors occupied by HUD in Jacksonville,
       Florida, and provide free-standing acoustic screens in the ratio
       of at least one linear foot for each 30 occupiable square feet in
       accordance with Section 4-2d, consistent with the provisions of
       Section 4-3c of the Space Management Handbook No. 2216.1 dated
       November 30, 1983.
 
                              III.  EXCEPTION
 
    The Agency contends that the award is deficient because the
 Arbitrator exceeded his authority in a number of ways.  The Agency
 contends that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by deciding the
 issue of placement of partitions because that issue was not submitted to
 arbitration.  More specifically, the Agency argues that nothing in the
 grievance suggested any dispute relating to the placement o