34:0304(57)AR - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND and AFGE, LOCAL 1592 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p304 ]
34:0304(57)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 34 FLRA NO. 57
 

               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                  AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND

                              and

          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                          LOCAL 1592

                           0-AR-1646

			   DECISION

     			January 16, 1990

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator James A. Evenson. The grievant received an
oral admonishment and was charged with 16 hours of absence
without leave (AWOL) for not properly notifying his supervisor of
his request for sick leave. The Arbitrator set aside the 16 hours
of AWOL but sustained the oral admonishment.

     American Federation of Government Employees Local 1592 (the
Union) filed exceptions to the award 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 U.S. Department of the Air Force (the agency) filed an
opposition to the exceptions on behalf of the Air Force Logistics
Command (the Activity).

     For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the
Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award
deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     On July 14, 1988, the grievant asked a fellow employee to
take a handwritten note to his immediate supervisor. The 
note stated that the grievant "would not be in for work due to
dizziness and sickness in his stomach and that he would see (his
supervisor) as soon as he felt better." Award at 2. The grievant
also did not report to work the following day.

     The grievant received an oral admonishment and was charged
with 16 hours of AWOL for not properly following the procedures
of the parties' collective bargaining agreement for notifying his
supervisor of his request for sick leave.

     The Arbitrator stated the issue to be whether the grievant's
actions were consistent with the agreement. The Activity argued
that, under the agreement, there are only two ways that employees
can notify their supervisors of requests for sick leave: (1)
telephone the supervisor, or (2) send a postmarked letter on the
day of the request. The Union argued that the two means listed in
the agreement are not exclusive and that there is a practice of
"employees sending notes to the (s)upervisors through their
friends, or of other people calling in by telephone for the sick
employee." Id. at 3. The Union also argued th