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. Discussion The Statute sets forth the grounds on which an arbitration award will be found deficient. Under section 7122(a), an award will be found deficient: (1) because it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or (2) on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. The Union's exceptions that the Activity violated five Articles of the collective bargaining agreement and failed to bargain in good faith do not provide a basis for finding the Arbitrator's award deficient under the Statute. Rather, the exceptions constitute disagreement with the Arbitrator's ruling that the grievance was not timely filed and, therefore, was not procedurally arbitrable. Disagreement with an arbitrator's determination on the procedural arbitrability of a grievance provides no basis for finding an award deficient. See, for example, Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Force Base and American Federation [PAGE 2] of Government Employees, Local 987, 32 FLRA 1081, 1082-83 (1988). Consequently, the Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award deficient. V. Decision The Union's exceptions are denied.