27:0316(43)AR - VA Medical Center, Kansas City, MO and AFGE Local 2663 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v27 p316 ]
27:0316(43)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
27 FLRA No. 43
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER, KANSAS CITY
MISSOURI
Agency
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 2663
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1314
DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Russell C. Neas filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an
opposition to the exceptions. /1/
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievant alleged that he was unjustifiably suspended for 5 days
for being absent without leave. The grievant claimed that he was absent
because of illness and that the suspension was a reprisal for union
activities and for filing an unfair labor practice charge and an
accident report. The Arbitrator essentially found that the record
clearly indicated that the grievant was absent without leave on the
occasions noted in the Agency's notice of proposed suspension; the
Agency did not violate the parties' collective bargaining agreement;
and the disciplinary action was not motivated by union animus. The
Arbitrator concluded that the Agency had just cause to discipline the
grievant and that the 5-day suspension was an appropriate penalty under
the circumstances. The Arbitrator therefore denied the grievance.
III. Discussions
In its exceptions, the Union essentially alleges that the Arbitrator
failed to provide the Union and the grievant a fair hearing, that the
Arbitrator exceeded his authority and that the award is not supported by
substantial evidence.
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, Federal Correctional
Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 2052, Petersburg, Virginia, 13 FLRA 108 (1983)
(exceptions attempting to relitigate the merits of a case before the
Authority and constituting nothing more than disagreement with an
arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions based on the
evidence and testimony presented and with the arbitrator's
interpretation and application of the parties' agreement provide no
basis for finding an award deficient).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., May 29, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) In its opposition, the Agency argues, among other things, that
the Union's exceptions fail to meet requirements of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations because they fail to state any ground for review
and are vague and general in nature. The Agency requests that the
exceptions be dismissed as procedurally deficient. We have determined
that the Union's exceptions are sufficiently clear and specific to
identify the grounds and arguments for the exceptions presented. The
Agency's request is therefore denied.