34:0293(54)AR - ARMY, PINE BLUFF ARSENAL PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS and AFGE, LOCAL 953 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p293 ]
34:0293(54)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 34 FLRA NO. 54



                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                      PINE BLUFF ARSENAL
                     PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS

                              and

          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                           LOCAL 953

                           0-AR-1592

			   DECISION

     			January 12, 1990

     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 James B. Giles. A grievance was filed by the
Union over the Activity's decision to change the administrative
workweek of its Production Readiness Division. The Arbitrator
found that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement,
the Union did not have a "veto right" over management's change of
workweeks. Arbitrator's Award at 5. Accordingly, he denied the
grievance.

     The Union 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
on the asserted ground that the arbitration hearing had been
"unfair and disorderly" and that the award was not "properly
documented." The Pine Bluff Arsenal (the Activity) did not file
an opposition to the exception.

     We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the
Union's exception. 

II. Background and the Arbitrator's Award

     In October 1987, the Activity split the Production Readiness
Division into two crews. One crew was assigned a workweek of
Monday through Thursday and the other crew was assigned a
workweek of Wednesday through Saturday. The Union filed a
grievance opposing the change. The grievance was submitted to
arbitration on the stipulated issues of (1) whether the grievance
was arbitrable, and (2) whether management had the right to
change administrative workweeks in order to improve efficiency
and decrease overtime costs. Arbitrator's Award at 2.

     The Arbitrator found that the grievance was arbitrable. On
the merits of the grievance, he found that under the management
rights provision of the parties' collective bargaining agreement,
the Union had "no veto right" over management's change of
administrative workweeks which were designed to improve
efficiency and decrease overtime costs. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator denied the grievance. Arbitrator's Award at 5.

III. The Union's Exception

     The Union contends that the Arbitrator did not conduct a
fair and orderly hearing. The Union maintains that its case was
not properly heard or "documented" by the Arbitrator. The Union
requests a new hearing before another arbitrator.

IV. Discussion

     We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds s