26:0799(94)AR - Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, and Tidewater Virginia FEMTC -- 1987 FLRAdec AR



[ v26 p799 ]
26:0799(94)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 26 FLRA No. 94
 
 NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD 
 PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1327
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator William G. Haemmel 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.
 
                  II.  Background and Arbitrator's Award
 
    The grievant contended that he was improperly denied a fair and
 equitable share of overtime work and that a "gross imbalance" existed in
 the distribution of overtime.  The grievant sought backpay for this
 alleged violation of the parties' agreement.
 
    Both parties had submitted written data and testimony to the
 Arbitrator.  The Arbitrator observed that the data on the grievant's
 overtime submitted by the Union and by the Activity was identical, and
 found that the parties were using the same data to arrive at differing
 conclusions.  The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the
 Activity had provided an adequate explanation regarding the assignment
 of overtime and that the Activity had not violated the parties'
 agreement regarding assignment of overtime to the grievant.  In so
 ruling, the Arbitrator rejected the Union's request to introduce an
 exhibit while it was making its closing statement.  The Arbitrator
 stated that the exhibit "cannot throw any light upon the facts of the
 instant case." Arbitrator's Award at 4.
 
                             III.  Discussion
 
    The Union contends that the award is deficient because the
 Abritrator's decision not to admit the Union's exhibit was abritrary and
 capricious.
 
    We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the
 Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
 section 7122(a) of the Statute;  that is, that the award is contrary to
 any law, rule or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
 grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
 labor-management relations.  See, for example, Local 1919, American
 Federation of Government Employees and Veterans Administration National
 Cemetery, Farmingdale, Long Island, New York, 12 FLRA 605 (1983) (a
 union's contentions which merely constitute disagreement with the
 arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence provide no basis for finding an
 award deficient);  and Mid-America Program Service Center, Social
 Security Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
 and Local No. 1336, American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA 264 (1981) (the assertion that the arbitrator would not
 all