34:0518(85)AR - ARMY HEADQUARTERS, 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY and AFGE, LOCAL 2022 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p518 ]
34:0518(85)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


  34 FLRA NO. 85
     


                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
           HEADQUARTERS, 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION
                  FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY

                            and

        AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                         LOCAL 2022

                         0-AR-1771

			  DECISION

     		      January 23, 1990

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator Wanza C. Johnson. The grievant filed a
grievance over his failure to be selected for promotion to a
WG-10, boiler plant operator position. The Arbitrator found that
the selection was in accordance with the collective bargaining
agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

     American Federation of Government Employees Local 2022 (the
Union) filed an exception 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
Department of the Army (the Agency) filed an opposition to the
exception on behalf of Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division,
Fort Campbell (the Activity).

     For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the Union has
failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient.
Accordingly, we will deny the exception. 

     II. Background and the Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant filed a grievance over his failure to be
selected for promotion to a WG-10, boiler plant operator
position. The Arbitrator determined on the basis of testimony
presented that: (1) the grievant was not qualified in all phases
of the requirements for the boiler plant operator position; and
(2) the employee selected was the best qualified for the
position. Therefore, the Arbitrator concluded that the selection
for the position was in accordance with the parties' collective
bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.

     III. Positions of the Parties

     A. The Union

     The Union contends that the Arbitrator "was apparently very
confused in determining who testified on behalf of the Union and
who testified on behalf of the employer." Union's Exception at 1.
The Union has submitted to the Authority statements from some of
the witnesses at the arbitration that dispute the testimony
attributed to them by the Arbitrator.

     B. The Agency

     The Agency contends that the Union's contention that the
Arbitrator confused the testimony of the witnesses fails to state
a ground on which an arbitration award will be found deficient
under the Statute.

     IV. Discussion

     The Authority will find an arbitration award deficient when
the central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but
for which a different result would have been reached. For
example, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama and
Local 1858, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL -
CIO, 18 FLRA  374 (1985) (Redstone Arsenal). We conclude that the
Union fails to establish that the award is deficient on this
ground. We are not persuaded that the unsworn statements
submitted by the Union establish that the Arbitrator's
determinations that the grievant was not fully qualified and that
the employee selected was the best qualified are clearly
erroneous. In our view, the Union is merely disagreeing with the
Arbitrator's findings of fact and his evaluation of the evidence
and testimony. The Union's exception fails to establish that the
central fact underlying the award is clearly erroneous, but for
which a different result would  have been reached and
provides no basis for finding the award deficient under the
Statute. Compare Redstone Arsenal, 18 FLRA  374 (award deficient
because the central fact underlying the award was clearly
erroneous, but for which a different result would have been
reached) with Department of the Navy Finance Center and Local
Union No. 3283, American Federation of Government Employees, 32
FLRA  754 (1988) (contentions that constitute nothing more than
disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of fact and
evaluation of the evidence do not establish that the central fact
underlying th