32:0053(5)AR - - AFGE Local 85 and VA Medical Center, Leavenworth, KS - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v32 p53



[ v32 p53 ]
32:0053(5)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


32 FLRA No. 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 85
Union

and 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS
Activity

Case No. 0-AR-1486

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator John M. Gradwohl. The Arbitrator denied the grievance over the reprimand of the grievant. The Arbitrator found that the grievant had misrepresented his inability to work when he requested sick leave and that a reprimand was an appropriate penalty.

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 Activity did not file an opposition.

We conclude that the Union has not established that the award is (1) based on facts not in evidence, or (2) contrary to the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

On February 3, 1987, the grievant called his supervisor and represented that he was unable to work. The grievant requested 3 hours of sick leave, which his supervisor granted. On February 4, 1987, the Activity charged the grievant with misrepresenting that he was unable to work on February 3. On the basis of this charge, the grievant was denied sick leave, was charged with being absent without leave, and was reprimanded. A grievance was filed claiming that the reprimand was not warranted and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator determined that the grievant had misrepresented the reasons for his absence on February 3, 1987, and that a reprimand was an appropriate penalty. Although the Arbitrator noted "possible procedural deficiencies" in management's handling of the reprimand, he determined that "these possible procedural deficiencies were, at most, harmless errors." Award at 10. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Discussion