34:0500(82)AR - U.S. ARMY RESERVE PERSONNEL CENTER and AFGE, LOCAL UNION NO. 900 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p500 ]
34:0500(82)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 34 FLRA NO. 82
     


             U.S. ARMY RESERVE PERSONNEL CENTER

                             and

         AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                     LOCAL UNION NO. 900

                          0-AR-1662

		           DECISION

		        January 22, 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 Josef Rohlik. A grievance was filed
concerning the rating that the grievant received when she applied
for a Military Personnel Staffing Technician position. The
Arbitrator denied the grievance because it was not timely filed
in accordance with time frames set forth in the parties'
collective bargaining agreement.

     The American Federation of Government Employees, Local Union
No. 900 (the Union) filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute). The U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (the Activity)
did not file an opposition to the exceptions.

     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. Accordingly, we deny the
Union's exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant applied for one of several Military Personnel
Staffing Technician positions. On approximately [PAGE] September
9, 1987, the grievant received notification that she was rated
highly qualified but was not included in the best qualified
group. Dissatisfied with her rating, the grievant inquired
informally about the rating in order for the Activity to correct
what she felt was an obvious error.

     From October 19 to November 12, 1987, the grievant had
several informal meetings with her supervisors regarding the
rating. The Activity informed the grievant that the rating was
final.

     The grievant filed a grievance on December 1, 1987,
protesting the rating she received. The grievance was not
resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

     The Activity claimed the matter was not arbitrable because
the grievance was filed untimely. The parties stipulated that the
Arbitrator should decide the arbitrability question before
proceeding with the hearing on the merits. Based on the testimony
given at the hearing, the Arbitrator found that the grievance was
untimely. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

     III. Exceptions

     The Union contends that the award is deficient because the
Activity violated five Articles of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement and failed to bargain in good faith.

     IV. Discussion

     The Statute sets