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