35:1295(149)AR - - Air Force, McClellan AFB, CA and AFGE Local 1857 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p1295
[ v35 p1295 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
35 FLRA No. 149
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
May 31, 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 Charles A. Askin. The Arbitrator denied the grievance over the Activity's reprimand of the grievant.
The Union filed an exception to the award 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 Activity did not file an opposition to the exception.
We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievant was reprimanded for tardiness resulting in absence without leave and for being insolent to his supervisor when his supervisor asked for an explanation of the grievant's tardiness. A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration.(1)
The Arbitrator noted that there was evidence that the grievant's supervisor and the grievant's department chief had used inappropriate language in separate incidents involving unit employees prior to the incident in this case. However, the Arbitrator found, contrary to the Union's argument, that "[t]he 'standard' in [the] work unit is that profane language and hostile behavior are not acceptable and employees are well aware of that expectation." Award at 2. Therefore, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant's conduct violated that standard and that he was insolent as charged. Accordingly, the Arbitrator ruled that there was just cause for the reprimand.
The Union contends that the award is deficient because it "was made absent specific findings required by law, rule, and regulation before the decision to reprimand can be legally granted pursuant to Air Force Regulation [AFR] 40-750." Union's Exception at 7. The Union notes provisions of AFR 40-750 pertaining to nexus and appropriateness of the penalty in disciplinary actions and argues that the Arbitrator failed to base his award on these provisions.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. The Union has failed to establish that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases.
The Arbitrator determined that the grievant was insolent, as charged, and that there was just cause for the reprimand. We reject the Union's contention that in the circumstances of this case, the Arbitrator was obligated to set forth specific findings or a rationale more extensive than he did to support the award denying the grievance. See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 171 and Federal Correctional Institution, 32 FLRA 965 (1988) (rejecting contention that the arbitrator was obligated to set forth specific findings and a rationale to support the award denying the grievance and citing Wissman v. Social Security Administration, 848 F.2d 176 (Fed. Cir. 1988), in which the court indicated that there is no general statutory obligation that an arbitrator set forth specific findings). Accord Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2145, 34 FLRA 524 (1990); U.S. Department of the Army, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 953, 34 FLRA 293 (1990).
As the Union's exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient, we will deny the exception.
The Union's exception is denied.(2)
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
1. Although the decision to reprimand was based both on the grievant's tardiness and insolence, the Arbitrator addressed only the charge of insolence and the Union in its exception describes this case as concerning a reprimand for insolence.
2. The Union also requested a stay of the award when it filed its exception with the Authority. However, effective December 31, 1986, the Authority's Rules and Regulations were revised to revoke those portions pertaining to the filing of requests for a stay of an arbitration awar