30:0484(62)AR - Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Tidewater Virginia FEMTC -- 1987 FLRAdec AR



[ v30 p484 ]
30:0484(62)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


30 FLRA NO. 62
30 FLRA 484

14 DEC 1987


NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD

                    Activity

      and

TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL

                    Union

Case No. 0-AR-1436

DECISION

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator Charles E. Donegan. The award sustained the
Activity's issuance of a letter of reprimand to the grievant. The
exception was 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 reasons stated below, we find that the award is not
deficient and we deny the exception.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant was issued a letter of reprimand for wasting
time, failing to follow supervisor's instructions, and poor
workmanship. The grievance, which was submitted to arbitration,
claimed that the reprimand was not for just cause and was
contrary to the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The
Arbitrator determined that the discipline imposed was both
reasonable and progressive, and was fairly applied. The
Arbitrator also determined that the reprimand did not violate the
parties' agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.

     III. Discussion

     The Union contends that the award is deficient because the
Arbitrator placed the burden of proof on the Union and [PAGE] the
grievant contrary to 5 U.S.C. chapter 77 and implementing
regulations.

     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,
Bureau of Indian Affairs and National Federation of Federal
Employees, Local 243, 25 FLRA  902 (1987) (unless a specific
burden of proof is required, an arbitrator may establish and
apply whatever burden the arbitrator considers appropriate);
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia and National
Association of Government Employees, Local R4-96, 13 FLRA  133
(1983) (exception contending that the arbitrator failed to apply
the burden of proof required by 5 U.S.C. chapter 77 was denied
because chapter 77 pertains to the Merit Systems Protection Board
and is not applicable to arbitration awards concerning lesser
disciplinary actions not covered by 5 U.S.C. 7512).

     IV. Order

     The Union's exception is denied.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., December 14, 1987