41:0311(34)AR - - Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution for Women, Alderson, WV and AFGE Local 1494 - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v41 p311



[ v41 p311 ]
41:0311(34)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


41 FLRA No. 34

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

ALDERSON, WEST VIRGINIA

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1494

(Union)

0-AR-2060

DECISION

June 24, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Stanley H. Sergent. The Arbitrator concluded that a 3-day suspension of the grievant was based on just cause and denied the grievance. 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 Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.

For the following reasons, 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

During a dispute between the grievant and a coworker, the grievant cursed the coworker and the coworker struck the grievant. A fight followed and both employees were seriously injured. The Agency suspended the grievant for 3 days for fighting in the workplace, and he filed a grievance. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration. The Arbitrator framed the issue as follows:

[W]hether the three day disciplinary suspension which was imposed upon the grievant as a result of his involvement in an altercation with a co-worker is consistent with those standards [under the collective bargaining agreement].

Award at 10.

The Arbitrator determined that although the grievant did not throw the first punch, he shared part of the blame because of the "abusive language and provocative remarks" made to his coworker which "created an atmosphere of hostility . . . ." Id. at 12-13. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the Agency had based its decision to suspend the grievant on charges that were not mentioned in the letter of proposed discipline. The Arbitrator concluded that although the Agency could have charged the grievant with additional offenses, "the sole basis for the disciplinary action was the grievant's instigation of the fight coupled with his failure to take any action to avoid it." Id. at 14.

The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant was suspended for just cause. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is "contrary to law, rule, or regulation, including the parties' collective bargaining agreement[.]" Exceptions at 1. Specifically, the Union argues that the Arbitrator's award "upheld[] charges not specified in the letter of proposed discipline." Id. at 2.

The Union asserts that the Agency's decision to suspend the grievant did not specify the same reasons for the suspension that were in the notice of proposed disciplinary action. The Union contends that Federal Pers