35:0929(98)AR - - DOD, Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic/Topographic Center, Washington, DC and AFGE Local 3407 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p929



[ v35 p929 ]
35:0929(98)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


35 FLRA No. 98

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY

HYDROGRAPHIC/TOPOGRAPHIC CENTER

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 3407

(Union)

0-AR-1806

DECISION

April 30, 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 John J. McGovern. The Arbitrator denied the grievance over the 5-day suspension of the grievant. 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 Agency did not timely file an opposition to the Union's exception.(*)

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

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant was suspended for 5 days for engaging in disrespectful conduct and using insulting and abusive language. The matter was grieved and arbitrated.

The Arbitrator concluded, based on his review of testimony and documentary evidence, that the Agency's imposition of the suspension was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and was "totally justified in full observance of both procedural and substantive due process of law." Award at 1. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. The Union's Exception

The Union contends that the Arbitrator "completely failed to do his job." Exceptions at 2. The Union claims that the Arbitrator failed to examine and review the testimony presented at the arbitration hearing and also failed to question the fairness or validity of the Agency's investigation of the incident involved in the grievance. According to the Union, the Arbitrator "not only ignored the total lack of evidence and testimony, he didn't even take the trouble to spell [the grievant's] name correctly[.]" Id.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

Disagreement with an arbitrator's evaluation of evidence and findings and conclusions based thereon provide no basis for finding an award deficient. See, for example, Department of the Army, 7th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Ord, California and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2082, 34 FLRA 916 (1990) (exception to arbitrator's factual and evidentiary findings provided no basis for finding award deficient). In our view, the Union's exception constitutes mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings and conclusions based on the testimony and evidence presented at the arbitration hearing. Accordingly, the exception does not demonstrate that the award is deficient.

V. Decision

The Union's exception is denied.




FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

*/ We reject the Agency's assertion that because the Authority's practice of acknowledging the receipt of exceptions to arbitration awards inadvertently was not followed in this case, its opposition should be considered. The Agency was served with a copy of the Union's exception and has demonstrated no extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of section 2429.23(b) of our Regulations, f