34:0518(85)AR - ARMY HEADQUARTERS, 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY and AFGE, LOCAL 2022 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR
[ v34 p518 ]
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.