34:0093(22)AR - AFGE, LOCAL 2904 and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY U.S. MARINE CORPS FINANCIAL CENTER KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI -- 1989 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p93 ]
34:0093(22)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


  34 FLRA NO. 22
  

    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                    LOCAL 2904

                       and

             U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
         U.S. MARINE CORPS FINANCIAL CENTER
               KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

                     0-AR-1784

	    ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTION

     		December 29,  1989

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator J.C. Fogelberg. The Arbitrator dismissed the
grievance over the grievant's removal. The Arbitrator determined
that the grievant had waived her grievance rights when she
executed a "last chance" agreement.

     AFGE Local 2904 filed an exception 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 Marine Corps Financial Center, Kansas City, Missouri (the
Activity) did not file an opposition to the exception.

     For the reasons stated below, we are without jurisdiction
under section 7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's
exception.

II. Background and the Arbitrator's Award

     On April 28, 1988, the grievant and the Activity executed an
agreement. Under the agreement, the grievant agreed to seek
professional assistance for her problems with alcohol, and
the Activity agreed to delay the decision on the proposed removal
of the grievant and afford the grievant an opportunity to resolve
her problems. The grievant also agreed to the reinstatement of
the removal action is she violated the agreement and to the
waiver of her right to grieve the removal action if it was
reinstated.

     On December 2, 1988, the grievant received a "Notice of
Removal" which reinstated the removal action because she had
violated the provisions of the April 28 agreement. A grievance
was filed over the grievant's removal and submitted to
arbitration on the threshold issue of the validity of the April
28 agreement.

     The Arbitrator determined that the agreement was valid.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

III. Exception

     The Union contends that the award is contrary to the
Statute. The Union argues that the Arbitrator erred by enforcing
an agreement which was entered into without the written consent
of the Union.

IV. Discussion

     We are without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the
Statute to review the Union's exception.

     Section 7122(a) of the Statute provides, in pertinent part,
as follows: