28:0107(21)AR - AFGE, LOCAL UNION 987 VS AIR FORCE, AIR LOGISTICS -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v28 p107 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA NO. 21
WARNER ROBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION 987 Union Case No. 0-AR-1345
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Roger C. Williams 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.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievance in this case concerned the reprimand of the grievant for failure to follow proper procedures while she was repairing an airplane aileron. The reprimand was based on the findings of a quality audit conducted for the purpose of monitoring compliance with prescribed procedures' and standards. The grievant denied that she was responsible for the discrepancies noted in the audit and contended that she was singled out for assignment to a job that would be audited.
The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the reprimand was for just cause, as required under the collective bargaining agreement. The Arbitrator found that a preponderance of the evidence showed that the grievant was responsible for the discrepancies for which she was reprimanded and that she was not singled out for an assignment which management knew would be audited. The Arbitrator ruled that the reprimand was for just cause and was an appropriate penalty for the offense. He therefore denied the grievance.
In its exception the Union contends that the award is contrary to law because the Arbitrator did not consider the appropriateness of the penalty imposed on the grievant in relation to penalties imposed on other employees for similar offenses and because the penalty shows a disparity in penalty for like offenses. The Union cites other arbitration awards involving similar offenses at the Activity which reduced reprimands to lesser penalties, and contends that the Arbitrator's award in this case is inconsistent with those awards. The Union maintains that the appropriate penalty in this case would have been an oral admonishment.
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 it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied