31:1181(101)AR - HHS, SSA and AFGE Local 1923 -- 1988 FLRAdec AR



[ v31 p1181 ]
31:1181(101)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


31 FLRA NO. 101

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                   Agency

       and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923

                   Union

                                        Case No. 0-AR-1491

                          DECISION

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Henry L. Jalette. The Arbitrator found that
the Social Security Administration did not violate either a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties or the
parties' collective bargaining agreement when it used the
Agency's computer security system to verify the time and
attendance of a unit employee.

     The Union filed exceptions 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 did not file an opposition. We conclude that the Union
has not established that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on
any of the grounds set forth in section 7122 (a) of the
Statute.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The Agency's National Computer Center (NCC) uses a
computerized security system to control access to its security
areas. The system monitors thousands of sensors located in the
NCC. In order to enter and to move about in the building,
employees are required to have card keys which must be inserted
into turnstiles. When inserted, the key activates a computer
which records the time of entry or exit. Although the computer
records the entry and exit times of all employees, employee
sign-in and sign-out sheets are the basis for payroll preparation
and are used by the Agency for time and attendance purposes.


     Prior to its implementation, the Agency proposed that the
NCC security system be used for administrative purposes, such as
verification of time and attendance data. The parties bargained
and entered into a memorandum of understanding establishing
certain conditions governing the use of the system.

     After agreement on the MOU, the Agency questioned the
accuracy of an employee's entries on the sign-in and sign-out
sheet. A printout of the computer tape for the dates in question
was obtained. Subsequently, the employee was disciplined. The
disciplinary action was grieved and was settled without
addressing the Agency's use of the computer printout to establish
that the employee had falsified her sign-in and sign-out
sheets.

     After the grievance over the disciplinary action was
settled, the grievance in this case was filed and submitted to
arbitration. The issue addressed by the Arbitrator was whether
the Agency violated the MOU and the parties' agreement by its use
of computer tapes to verify the time and attendance reports of
employees.

     The Arbitrator determined that although the MOU did not
authorize use of the security system to monitor employee time and
attendance, it also did not prohibit that use. Therefore, the
Arbitrator found that the Agency's use of the security system to
verify the time and attendance of employees did not violate
either the MOU or the parties' agreement. The Arbitrator denied
the Union's grievance.

     III. Exceptions

     The Union contends that: (1) the Arbitrator failed to
properly consider and decide the principal issue before him; (2) 
the award is based on a nonfact because the Arbitrator determined
that the MOU both did not authorize and did not prohibit the use
of the security system for administrative purposes; and (3) the
Arbitrator exceeded his authority by deciding that the MOU did
not prohibit the Agency's use of the security system to monitor
employees' time and attendance.

     IV. Discussion

     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 by Federal
courts in private sector labor-management relations cases. The
Union's exceptions constitute nothing more than disagreement with
the Arbitrator's conclusion that the MOU and the parties'
agreement did not prohibit the use of the security system to
monitor employees' time and attendance. See, fo