33:0053(6)AR - - Army, HQ, Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, AL and AFGE Local 1815 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v33 p53
[ v33 p53 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
33 FLRA No. 6
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION CENTER,
FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
October 12, 1988
Before Chairman Calhoun and Member McKee.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Edward C. Johnson, Jr. The grievant filed a grievance challenging a charge of 6 hours of absence without leave (AWOL) and a 3-day suspension for failing to report to work as directed. The Arbitrator denied the grievance.
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 deficient because the award is contrary to the collective bargaining agreement or the evidence presented.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievant's hours of work are 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. On March 20, 1987, at approximately 8:10 a.m., the grievant telephoned his supervisor and stated that he was having car problems. The grievant's supervisor directed him to report to work by 9:30 a.m. and granted him 2 hours of emergency annual leave from the start of his workday until 9:30 a.m. The grievant did not report for work on March 20 and did not contact his supervisor. As a result, he was charged with 6 hours of AWOL and was suspended for 3 days for failing to report to work as directed. The grievant filed a grievance challenging both the charge of AWOL and the 3-day suspension. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.
Before the Arbitrator, the Union argued that the car problems experienced by the grievant reasonably required a full day to resolve. The Union maintained that the grievant appropriately contacted his supervisor and requested emergency annual leave. The Union claimed that under the emergency annual leave provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the grievant should have been granted 8 hours of emergency annual leave.
The Arbitrator denied the grievance. The Arbitrator found that the grievant understood that he had been directed to report to work no later than 9:30 a.m. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's failure to contact his supervisor when it appeared that he would be unable to report to work as directed was not responsible or acceptable behavior. The Arbitrator also found that the supervisor's refusal to grant 8 hours of emergency annual leave did not violate the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Under the circumstances, the Arbitrator determined that a 3-day suspension was an appropriate and reasonable penalty.
The Union contends that the award is contrary to the parties' collective bargaining agreement and the evidence presented. The Union argues that in the circumstances presented by the evidence submitted to the Arbitrator, the grievant was entitled under the parties' collective bargaining agreement to have been granted 8 hours of emergency annual leave by his supervisor. Therefore, the Union maintains that by denying the grievance, the award is deficient.
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. The Union has failed to establish 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.
The Union's exceptions are an attempt to relitigate this case before the Authority. They constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement and the Arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions. The exceptions provide no basis for finding the arbitration award deficient. See, for example, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, AFL-CIO, 30 FLRA 482 (1987) (an exception which constitutes nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 85 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Leavenworth, Kansas, 32 FLRA 53 (1988) (exceptions which constitute nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the merits of the grievance and disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions provide no basis for finding an award deficient).
The Union's exceptions are denied.