34:0500(82)AR - U.S. ARMY RESERVE PERSONNEL CENTER and AFGE, LOCAL UNION NO. 900 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR
[ v34 p500 ]
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.