34:0687(118)AR - - Naval Ordnance Station of Louisville, KY and IAM, Local Lodge 830 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v34 p687
[ v34 p687 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
34 FLRA No. 118
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND
LOCAL LODGE 830
February 1, 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 W. Scott Thomson. The Arbitrator denied the grievance over the 3-day suspension of the grievant for failure to report for mandatory overtime assignments.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 830 (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. The Naval Ordnance Station of Louisville, Kentucky (the Activity) did not file an opposition to the Union's 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 exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievant is a supply clerk in the Activity's stock management branch. On May 20, 1985, all employees in the stock management branch were informed of mandatory overtime to be worked on May 29 - June 1. The grievant submitted three requests to be relieved from the mandatory overtime assignments for unspecified "personal" reasons. Arbitrator's Award at 5-6. All the grievant's requests were denied because he failed to specify the personal hardship that would be caused by working the overtime assignments.
When the grievant failed to work the overtime assignments, he was suspended for 3 days. He filed a grievance over the suspension, and the grievance was submitted to arbitration.
The grievant argued that the parties' collective bargaining agreement did not require him to explain his personal reasons for not working the overtime assignments because such an explanation would violate his personal privacy. The Arbitrator rejected the grievant's argument. The Arbitrator determined that the agreement requires employees requesting relief from overtime assignments to provide a reasonable explanation to support their requests. Therefore, the Arbitrator ruled that the Activity justifiably required an explanation from the grievant. Because the grievant never provided the required explanation, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
The Union contends that the award is contrary to the evidence presented. The Union maintains that contrary to the Arbitrator's finding, the grievant did provide a specific explanation of personal hardship. The Union further contends that because the award is not based on the evidence presented, the award is contrary to law.
The Union also contends that the award is contrary to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. º 552a. The Union argues that the grievant was not obligated to provide any information in support of his request and cannot be punished for failing to provide the information because the requirements of the Privacy Act were not met. The Union maintains that an individual cannot be compelled to supply personal information unless the individual is informed of: (1) whether the disclosure is mandatory; (2) the authority for the information request; (3) the major purposes for which the information will be used; and (4) a brief summary of the routine uses of the information. The Union asserts that these requirements were not met and that therefore, the Arbitrator could not sustain the discipline of the grievant for failing to provide the information.
We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. Under section 7122(a) of the Statute, 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 contentions that the award is deficient because the award is contrary to, and not based on, the evidence presented provides no basis for finding the award deficient. The contentions constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and the Arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence and testimony presented and provide no basis for finding the award deficient. See, for example, Air Force Logistics Command, Tinker Air Force Base and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, 33 FLRA 96 (1988) (a contention that constitutes nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's findings of fact and evaluation of evidence and testimony provides no basis for finding an award deficient under the Statute).
The Union also fails to persuade us that the award is contrary to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure of information apply, with exceptions not relevant to this case, to information maintained in a "system of records." Boyd v. Secretary of the Navy, 709 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1983). A "system of records" is defined as a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual to whom the record pertains or by some other identifying number or symbol. 5 U.S.C. º 552a(a)(5).
The Union has not established that the explanation required to support a request for relief from an overtime duty assignment would be maintained by the Activity in a "system of records" from which the information would be retrieved by the grievant's name or other identifying number or symbol. The Union has failed, therefore, to establish that the Privacy Act applies or that the award is contrary to the Privacy Act. See, for example, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Command, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, AFL-CIO, 28 FLRA 792 (1987) (the arbitrator denied the grievance and found that requiring the grievant to submit medical information to support a request for exemption from mandatory overtime did not violate the Privacy Act; the Authority found that the union failed to establish that the award was contrary to the Privacy Act).