46:0683(64)AR - - Navy, Navy Public Works Center, San Diego, CA and NAGE Local R12-35 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v46 p683



[ v46 p683 ]
46:0683(64)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


46 FLRA No. 64

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

(Agency)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R12-35

(Union)

0-AR-2334

DECISION

November 27, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Samuel A. Vitaro 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.

An employee filed a grievance challenging the Agency's decision to suspend him for 10 days. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance, in part, and denied the grievance, in part. The Arbitrator concluded that a 5-day suspension was an appropriate penalty for the misconduct that the Arbitrator found had occurred.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union's exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant is employed by the Agency as a Facilities Maintenance Specialist. By notice dated June 14, 1991, the grievant's first line supervisor proposed that the grievant receive a 10-day suspension for "uncooperative, disruptive and disrespectful conduct on the job." Award at 3. The notice of proposed suspension consisted of nine specifications of charges against the grievant and described conduct in which the grievant was alleged to have engaged. Upon review of the proposal, the grievant's second level supervisor found that the specifications were supported and the proposed penalty appropriate. The grievant filed a grievance concerning the proposed suspension. The matter was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator framed the issues before him as follows:

Was the [Agency's] conduct in suspending the [g]rievant justified under the circumstances, and, if so, was a 10-day suspension justified? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?

Id. at 4.

The Arbitrator concluded that six of the nine specifications in the notice of proposed suspension were either unproven by the Agency or did not warrant discipline. Accordingly, the Arbitrator did not sustain those specifications.

The Arbitrator did find, however, that two other specifications and part of a third specification were supported. Specification 1 alleged that the grievant had improperly represented himself as a team leader. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant had engaged in disrespectful and uncooperative conduct by repeatedly introducing the grievant's team leader to customers as the grievant's electrician, despite repeated instructions that the team leader would perform all introductions to customers. In this regard, the Arbitrator found the team leader and a corrob