24:0959(93)AR - HHS, SSA and AFGE Local No. 547 -- 1986 FLRAdec AR

 24 FLRA No. 93
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
 HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY 
 ADMINISTRATION
 Agency
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL No. 547
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1148
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Lawrence Kanzer 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 Agency filed an opposition.
 /*/
 
                  II.  BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
 
    The grievance in this case concerns the Agency's suspension of the
 grievant, a Claims Representative, for 12 days for his tardiness in
 processing the files of several claimants in dire need of compensation
 for medical care, medicine, housing and food.  When the parties could
 not resolve the dispute as to the appropriateness of this disciplinary
 action, the matter was submitted to arbitration.
 
    The Arbitrator initially examined the duties and the distribution of
 work among the grievant and his fellow Claims Representatives (CRs).
 Thereafter, the Arbitrator compared the CRs' disciplinary records.
 
    First, he found that the most important duty of a CRwas to note that
 a claim had been filed and to secure the basic information, for example
 the claimant's name, required on Form SSA-450-SI (Form 450).  Once this
 was done, the claim could then be processed.  Second, the Arbitrator
 determined that the grievant had not been assigned an inequitable number
 of claims to be processed.  Finally, the Arbitrator after comparing the
 discipline records of two CRs introduced by the grievant, found that
 neither CRhad violated the Form-450 input requirement to the extent that
 the grievant had violated it.
 
    After examining the positions of the parties, the Arbitrator
 specifically determined that the grievant was grossly negligent in
 failing to input various dire need claims into the processing system by
 completing a Form 450.  Since 7 or 8 of the dire need claimants were
 thereby denied timely benefits due to the grievant's omission, the
 Arbitrator found that the discipline imposed was warranted and for just
 cause.  Accordingly, he denied the grievance.
 
                        III.  POSITION OF THE UNION
 
    In its exceptions the Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is
 deficient because (1) he failed to conduct a fair hearing by refusing to
 hear material and relevant evidence which the Union wished to present
 and (2) the award is based on nonfacts.  Regarding the first contention,
 the Union asserts that the Arbitrator terminated the hearing prematurely
 in order to catch a plane.  It claims that the two hours allotted for
 the Union's presentation did not permit it to call all of its witnesses
 and the Arbitrator thereby failed to consider all of the Union's
 relevant and material evidence.  In support of this exception the Union
 cites the Authority's decisions in National Border Patrol Council and
 National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council and U.S.
 Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 3 FLRA
 400 (1980);  Veterans Administration, Regional Office and Service
 Employees International Union, Local 556, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA 463 (1981);
 San Antonio Air Logistics Center, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas and
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1617, 6 FLRA
 419 (1981);  U.S. Department of Labor and American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local No. 644, NCFLL, 12 FLRA 639 (1983).
 
    As to the contention that the award is based on a nonfact, the Union
 asserts that the Arbitrator failed to consider documentation offered by
 the Union which challenged the Agency's position that the grievant was
 responsible for tallying and inputting claims.  The Arbitrator, however,
 based his award on the finding that the grievant was responsible for
 tallying or initiating the claims into processing system.  To support
 this exception the Union cites the Authority's decision in Mid-America
 Program Service Center, Social Security Administrtion, Department of
 Health, Education, and Welfare and Local No. 1336, American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA 264 (1981).
 
                       IV.  ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    Although we will find an arbitration award deficient if it is
 established that the arbitrator failed to conduct a fair hearing by
 refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence, for example, National