34:---(83)AR - SCOTT AFB, ILLINOIS and NAGE, LOCAL R7-23 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR

[ v34 p--- ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

34 FLRA NO. 83

                     SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE


                         LOCAL R7-23



                        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 Edward W. Garnholz. The Arbitrator denied a
grievance concerning a performance rating.

     The National Association of Government Employees, Local
R7-23 (the Union) filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute) and Part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, (the Agency) did not file an
opposition to the exceptions.

     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

     The grievant worked as a Logistics Management Specialist,
346 series, in the plans section of the Logistics
Directorate of the Air Force Communications Command. The grievant
alleged that his performance rating of fully successful for the
period ending June 30,  1987, was improper and inaccurate. The
grievant contended that he had continued to perform as well as he
had during the 1985-1986 rating period when his rating was
"excellent." Further, the grievant contended that he was not
counseled regarding any decline in performance or deficiencies in
his work. In addition, the grievant complained that his
supervisor "was not present long enough to ever give him a fair
appraisal of his work" for the period in question. Award at 9.
When the parties did not resolve the grievance, it was submitted
to arbitration.

     The issues before the Arbitrator were: (1) "Whether the
Grievant's performance rating for the period July 1, 1986 to June
30,  1987 accurately reflects the quality of his work performance
for that period?" and (2) "(W)hether the Grievant's performance
rating for the relevant period is inaccurate, and, if so, should
he receive priority consideration for promotion as a remedy?"
Award at 10.

     The Arbitrator concluded that the supervisor had ample
opportunity to observe and review the grievant's work record even
though the supervisor was out of town approximately 30  percent
of the time. The Arbitrator further found that the grievant's
supervisor cited major deficiencies in the grievant's work and
noted that the supervisor's testimony was corrobor