45:0424(33)AR - - AFGE Local 1592 and Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, UT - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v45 p424
[ v45 p424 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
45 FLRA No. 33
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Donald H. Wollett 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 exception.
The Arbitrator denied a grievance relating to an assessment levied against the grievant for causing property damage. We conclude that the Union's exception fails to establish that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
This dispute arose when the grievant was directed to take his tractor-trailer to a storage yard to pick up some items. As the grievant approached the yard, he was told that the normal access route was obstructed and that he would have to take a different route to back into the yard.
As the grievant maneuvered the tractor-trailer into the "'alley,'" he did not notice three standing posts. Award at 2. The front of the tractor-trailer hit the middle post causing damage to the fender in the amount of $689.39. Following an investigation, the Agency determined that the grievant had been negligent. The Agency concluded that the damage could have been prevented if the grievant had complied with Air Force Regulation 77-2, which requires "ground guides or spotters" to assist drivers backing up equipment such as the grievant's tractor-trailer.1/ Id. at 4. The Agency determined that the grievant should be assessed 40 percent of the damage amount for a total assessment to the grievant of $275.00.
The issue before the Arbitrator was whether the grievant was "liable for the amount of $275.00 which was assessed against him? If not, what should the remedy be?" Id. at 2.
The Arbitrator found that the Air Force regulation requires the use of spotters, and that to have minimized the risk attendant to backing up the tractor-trailer, the grievant should have requested the assistance of two spotters. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant should have noticed the poles as he was placing the tractor-trailer into position to back up and should have obtained spotters. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's failure to see the posts and to protect the front of the vehicle by seeking the assistance of at least one spotter "was the proximate cause of the damage which led to the assessment of $275.00." Id. at 6. The Arbitrator found unpersuasive the Union's arguments that the Air Force regulation frequently is ignored by drivers, that it is sometimes difficult to find spotters, and that employees do not like the responsibility of being spotters. Instead, the Arbitrator inferred from the evidence that a driver should try to obtain the assistance of spotters but, if unable to do so after a reasonable effort, the driver may proceed. In the latter case, the Arbitrator found that a driver assumes the risk in the event of an accident.
Finally, the Arbitrator addressed a procedural argument raised by the Union. The Arbitrator found that, under the parties' agreement, the Agency was required to respond to the grievance within 10 days but failed to do so in this case. Citing Cornelius v. Nutt, 472 U.S. 648 (1984), the Arbitrator found that arbitrators "should make every reasonable effort to approximate the position that the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB] would have taken on a particular issue." Award at 7. The Arbitrator found that the MSPB "would not reverse Agency action on the basis of a procedural aberration unless it was harmful or prejudicial." Id. The Arbitrator determined that he was unable to identify any way in which the Agency's late response was harmful or prejudicial to the grievant.
As his award, the Arbitrator found that the Agency properly held the grievant liable for the amount of $275.00. Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
III. Union's Exception
The Union asserts that the award is contrary to law. Specifically, the Union maintains that the Arbitrator mistakenly believed that he was "bound by the 'harmful error' rule