Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repairs, United States Navy (Activity) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-2 (Union) 

 5 FLRA No. 29
 
 SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING,
 CONVERSION AND REPAIR,
 UNITED STATES NAVY
 Activity
 
 and
 
 LOCAL R4-2, NATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES (NAGE)
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-176
 
                  DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A MOTION FILED BY THE UNION
 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO
 HAD BEEN SUSPENDED FOR FIVE DAYS FOR BEING ABSENT FROM HIS WORKSITE.
 THE ARBITRATOR HELD THAT THE ISSUE AT ARBITRATION "BOILED DOWN" TO A
 QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING AS TO
 WHETHER OR NOT THE GRIEVANT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN SEEN AWAY FROM HIS
 WORKSITE.  THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE GRIEVANT'S
 SUPERVISOR WAS CREDIBLE AND THAT OF THE GRIEVANT WAS NOT.
 
    THE UNION FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD WITH THE AUTHORITY ALLEGING
 THAT THE ARBITRATOR FAILED TO CONSIDER PERTINENT EVIDENCE;  THE
 AUTHORITY DETERMINED IN 5 FLRA NO.  29 (1981), HOWEVER, THAT THE ESSENCE
 OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTION WAS THAT THE ARBITRATOR HAD REACHED A WRONG
 CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM.  THE AUTHORITY FOUND
 THAT:
 
    THE UNION'S EXCEPTION THUS CONSTITUTES A DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
 ARBITRATOR'S REASONING AND
 
    CONCLUSIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM AND HIS EVALUATION
 OF THE TESTIMONY
 
    PRESENTED TO HIM, PARTICULARLY THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AND THE
 WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THEIR
 
    TESTIMONY.  SUCH ASSERTIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE
 AWARD DEFICIENT.
 
    IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE UNION ASKS THAT THE AUTHORITY
 RECONSIDER THE UNION'S EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD AND, AS IT DID IN ITS
 ORIGINAL EXCEPTION, REFERS TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
 ARBITRATION HEARING AND TO TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE CONTAINED ON THOSE
 PAGES WHICH IT ALLEGES WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ARBITRATOR.
 
    THE UNION'S CONTENTIONS IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE THE
 SAME AS THOSE THE AUTHORITY REJECTED IN DENYING THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IN
 5 FLRA NO. 29.  THUS, THE UNION IS DISAGREEING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S
 REASONING IN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEFORE HIM AND IS IN
 ESSENCE ATTEMPTING TO RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THAT CASE.  AS THE
 AUTHORITY POINTED OUT IN 5 FLRA NO. 29, THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS
 FOR FINDING AN AWARD DEFICIENT.
 
    THUS, THE UNION IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS NOT RAISED ANY
 MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND CORRECTLY DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITY
 AND HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY OTHER PERSUASIVE REASONS TO WARRANT REOPENING
 OR RECONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THIS CASE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION'S
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 24, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY