39:0896(78)AR - - AFGE, Council 236 and GSA - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v39 p896
[ v39 p896 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
39 FLRA No. 78
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
February 28, 1991
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 B. LaRocco filed by the Union 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 file an opposition to the Union's exceptions.
In his award, the Arbitrator reduced the grievant's suspension for 30 days to a suspension for 10 days. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The matter submitted to arbitration concerned the 30-day suspension of the grievant, a Union representative, for use of a Government-owned vehicle for other than official purposes. The Union argued that the issue to be arbitrated should be whether Union representational functions constitute the official business of the Agency and whether the grievant was performing authorized representational functions when he used a Government vehicle. However, the Arbitrator rejected the Union's statement of issue and adopted the Agency's position that the issue concerned the disciplinary matter of the Agency's 30-day suspension of the grievant and whether the suspension was for just cause. The Arbitrator found that because the grievant used the Government vehicle without permission, some discipline was justified. However, he also found that a suspension for 30 days was arbitrary and excessive. Therefore, he ordered that the 30-day suspension be replaced with a 10-day suspension for unauthorized use of a Government-owned vehicle.
III. Union's Exceptions
The Union asserts that the Authority has jurisdiction to review the Union's exceptions because the exceptions do not address the matter of the 30-day suspension but address only that part of the award which concerns the 10-day suspension. The Union maintains that the Arbitrator's imposition of a 10-day suspension is based on a nonfact and is contrary to law, rule or regulation. The Union contends that the Arbitrator failed to decide the main issue in the grievance, which was whether the grievant's use of the vehicle was in connection with a representational matter which was also official Government business.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
We find that the Authority is without jurisdiction under section 7122(a) of the Statute to review the Union's exceptions.
Section 7122(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Either party to arbitration under this chapter may file with the Authority an exception to any arbitrator's award pursuant to the arbitration (other than an award relating to a matter described in section 7121(f) of this title).
The matters described in section 7121(f) of the Statute include serious adverse actions covered under 5 U.S.C. º 7512, such as suspensions for more than 1