35:1300(151)AR - - Air Force, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB and AFGE Local 916 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p1300
[ v35 p1300 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
35 FLRA No. 151
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
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 Hugh R. Catherwood. A grievance was filed contesting the charge to the grievant of 4 hours of absence without leave (AWOL). The Arbitrator denied the grievance.
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
In December 1988, the grievant was given letters cautioning him as to excessive use of unscheduled annual leave. According to the Arbitrator, during the period of
June 2, 1989, to August 22, 1989, the grievant had been tardy five times, with each tardiness being less than 1 hour, and on three occasions he had requested emergency annual leave. His supervisor excused each incident of tardiness and granted his requests for emergency annual leave.
On August 23, 1989, the grievant telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be 3-4 hours late reporting for duty that day. The grievant's supervisor advised him that the time would be charged to AWOL. The grievant reported to work 4 hours late and was informed that he would be charged with 4 hours of AWOL. The grievant did not offer, and his supervisor did not request, the reasons for the absence.
A grievance was filed contesting the 4 hours of AWOL. It was not until the grievance was filed that the grievant explained the cause of his absence: his car would not start and he needed a jump-start; he purchased a new battery; and he installed a deadbolt on his apartment door. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.
The Arbitrator denied the grievance. The Arbitrator concluded that in view of the grievant's attendance record, he should not have requested leave on August 23 and, having requested leave and having had the request denied, he should have reported for duty promptly.
The Union contends that the award is deficient because it is "contrary to and not within the spirit, intent, and general character of the law" and that the Arbitrator "exceeded the bounds of his authority," as set forth in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Union's Exception at 2. In support of this contention, the Union argues that although the grievant's supervisor testified to the grievant's prior tardiness, the grievant's prior tardiness was never established by the better evidence of actual time cards. The Union also disputes other testimony of the grievant's supervisor and claims that the Arbitrator failed to consider her credibility. The Union further maintains that the grievant's use of emergency annual leave on three occasions in a 3-month period is not excessive.
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 Union's exception and its supporting arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and his evaluation of the evidence and testimony, including the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. The exception and arguments provide no basis for finding the award deficient. See, for example, Department of the Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987, 32 FLRA 193 (1988). Accordingly, we will deny the exception.
The Union's exception is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)