23:0325(41)AR - SSA, Albuquerque Data Operations Center and AFGE Local 3512 -- 1986 FLRAdec AR
[ v23 p325 ]
23:0325(41)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 41
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ALBUQUERQUE DATA OPERATIONS CENTER
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3512
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1103
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Don Hamilton filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration claiming that the
grievant, an employee covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
had improperly been denied compensation for 15 minutes of overtime.
According to the Arbitrator, the grievant alleged that her supervisor
approached and asked her to complete some work that needed to be
performed before the night shift came on duty and that completion of the
work extended her worktime by 15 minutes for which she is entitled to
overtime compensation under FLSA. The Arbitrator noted that the
grievant acknowledged that her supervisor did not request that she work
overtime and that the grievant did not seek permission of her supervisor
to work overtime. The Arbitrator also noted that the supervisor
testified that she was unaware that the grievant had extended her
worktime by 15 minutes. In resolving the grievance the Arbitrator
indicated that under FLSA compensable worktime includes time during
which an employee is suffered or permitted to work. In particular, he
cited 5 CFR Section 551.102(e) which defines work that is suffered or
permitted as follows:
(A)ny work performed by an employee for the benefit of an
agency, whether requested or not, provided the employee's
supervisor knows or has reason to believe that the work is being
performed and has an opportunity to prevent the work from being
performed.
Applying that definition to the case presented to him, he denied the
grievance, finding in effect that the 15 minutes in dispute was not time
during which the grievant was suffered or permitted to work.
III. EXCEPTIONS
In its exceptions the Union essentially contends that the award is
deficient because, contrary to the determination of the Arbitrator, the
disputed 15 minutes was time during which the grievant was suffered or
permitted to work within the meaning of FLSA and implementing
regulations. Specifically, the Union asserts that therefore the denial
of the grievance is contrary to FLSA and implementing regulations, is
arbitrary and capricious, is in excess of the Arbitrator's authority,
and fails to draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining
agreement. The union also asserts that the Arbitrator based his award
on the fact that the grievant directly filed a grievance rather than
requesting overtime compensation and that this constitutes a restraint
on the use of the negotiated grievance procedure contrary to the Statute
and the agreement.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is
deficient. As noted, the Arbitrator denied the grievance finding in
effect that the disputed 15 minutes was not time during whith the
grievant was suffered or permitted to work. In its exceptions the Union
fails to establish otherwise. The Union fails to substantiate in
accordance with 5 CFR Section 551.102(e) both that the grievant's
supervisor knew or had reason to believe that work was being performed
and that she had an opportunity to prevent the work from being
performed. Instead, in disputing the determination of the Arbitrator,
the Union is attempting to relitigate the merits of this case before the
Authority by disagreeing with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and
reasoning and conclusions in resolving the dispute before him.
Consequently, the Union in this respect provides no basis for finding
the award deficient. U.S. Department of Labor and American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 12, 17 FLRA 952 (1985). We also conclude
that no basis is provided for finding the award deficient as contrary to
the Statute or the agreement as asserted by the Union. Contrary to the
assertion of the Union, we find that the award was based on the
Arbitrator's determination that no work was suffered or permitted to be
performed by the grievant and not on the fact that the grievant directly
filed a grievance claiming overtime compensation.
V. DECISION
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY