28:1139(148)AR - AFGE, LOCAL 2814 VS DOT, FMHA
[ v28 p1139 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA NO. 148
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Agency and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2814 Union Case No. 0-AR-1404
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Earle William Hockenberry 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.
For the reason stated below, we deny the exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration on the stipulated issue of whether the challenged actions of the Agency from 1984 to 1986 constituted harassment and reprisal against the grievant and a destruction of his Federal career. The Arbitrator noted that during the hearing, the grievant had received a reduction-in-force (RIF) notice notifying him that his position was to be abolished. By bench decision, the Arbitrator determined that it would be improper under the parties' collective bargaining agreement to permit the grievant to amend the grievance to include the new issue of his RIF. On the stipulated issue, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant had failed to establish that the actions taken by the Agency amounted to harassment, reprisal, and a destruction of his Federal career. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is deficient because the award violates law, rule, and regulation and because the grievant was denied the requirements of due process and judicial review of the private sector where the grievance would have been affirmed. Essentially, the Union argues that the Agency's actions were in violation of law, rule, and regulation and constituted harassment and reprisal and that consequently the award is deficient by not sustaining the grievance. The Union also argues that the Arbitrator's bench decision is deficient. The Union further argues that in several respects, the Arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing. The Union also claims that the Arbitrator failed to consider all the facts, evidence, and testimony and based his conclusions on speculation.
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 Labor and National Council of Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, 19 FLRA 300 (1985) (exceptions which merely constitute an attempt to relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact, reasoning and conclusions, and evaluation of the evidence and testimony provide no basis for finding an award deficient); U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local No. 777, 12 FLRA 181 (1983) (an exception which merely disagrees with an arbitrator's conclusion on whether a grievance complies with the procedural requirements of the parties' collective bargaining agreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 547, 24 FLRA No. 93 (1986) (the fact that the arbitrator conducted the hearing in a manner that one party finds objectionable does not provide a basis for finding the award deficient).
Accordingly, the union's exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C. September 23, 1987.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairma