34:0090(21)AR - NAVY, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON and BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL -- 1989 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p90 ]
341:0090(21)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 34 FLRA NO. 21


                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
                     BREMERTON, WASHINGTON

                              and

                BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL

                           0-AR-1593

		   ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTION

    		      December 29,  1989

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This case is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator Robert A. O'Neill. The exception was filed by
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local Union No. 2317 on
behalf of the Bremerton Metal Trades Council (the Union) and the
grievant 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 Authority is without jurisdiction to review the
Union's exception and it must be dismissed.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant was removed from his position after he suffered
an injury while working at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (the
Agency) and filed a claim. The grounds for the removal were: (1)
misstatement and concealment of facts in connection with an
official record; (2) filing false testimony during an
investigation; (3) filing false claims against the Government;
(4) failure to observe precautions for personal safety; and (5)
violations of safety regulations that endangered the grievant's
life and resulted in personal injury. 

     The grievant filed a grievance which was submitted to
arbitration. The issues before the Arbitrator were (1) whether
the Agency violated the parties' agreement and Chapter 752 of the
Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) when it removed the grievant; and
(2) if so, whether the grievant should be reinstated and made
whole for lost pay and benefits. The Arbitrator determined that
each of the five charges against the grievant was "substantially
proven" and supported the removal action. Arbitrator's Award at
19. Therefore, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Exception

     The Union alleges that the award is contrary to law and
Government-wide regulation because "the Arbitrator fail(ed) to
correctly apply the provisions of Federal Personnel Manual 752,
Section 7122 and Public Law 454, the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978." Union's Exception at 1. The Union asserts that the FPM and
the Statute require the Agency to prove the charges used to
support a removal by a preponderance of the evidence. The Union
contends that the Arbitrator did not apply the preponderance of
evi