28:0792(103)AR - AFGE, LOCAL 916 VS AIR FORCE, AFLC, AIR FORCE BASE



[ v28 p792 ]
28:0792(103)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


28 FLRA NO. 103



OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS
COMMAND, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE,
OKLAHOMA

                    Activity

      and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 916, AFL-CIO

                    Union

Case No. 0-AR-1385

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator J.C. Fogelberg 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

A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration disputing the request of the grievant's supervisor that the grievant submit additional medical information to her from his physician to support his being exempted from mandatory overtime. The Arbitrator determined that management was authorized under Office of Personnel Management regulations and Air Force regulations to request medical information for such a purpose and that the request in this case was reasonable. He also rejected the Union's argument that the submission of the medical information to the grievant's supervisor violated the Privacy Act and medical ethics regarding confidentiality. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator permitted the unwarranted invasion of the  personal privacy of the grievant by upholding the submission of the requested medical records to the grievant's supervisor who is not a medical professional. Specifically, the Union argues that the award is contrary to the Privacy Act and implementing regulations pertaining to disclosure of medical records.

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; specifically, 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 relations cases. See, for example, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, 12 FLRA 616 (1983) (exception contending that the award was contrary to law provided no basis for finding that the award was deficient; the union was attempting to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and the exception constituted disagreement with the arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions).

Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.

Issue