American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 1815 (Union) and United States Army Safety Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama (Activity) 

 7 FLRA No. 62
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL NO. 1815
 Union
 
 and
 
 UNITED STATES ARMY
 SAFETY CENTER, FORT
 RUCKER, ALABAMA
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-129
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR SHERMAN DALLAS FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) /1/
 AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART
 2425).  THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN THE
 GRIEVANT WAS DENIED OVERTIME PAY FOR REQUIRED TRAVEL TIME IN EXCESS OF
 THE NORMAL SCHEDULED WORKDAY.  THE TRAVEL IN THIS CASE INVOLVED AIR
 TRAVEL TO AND FROM KOREA TO INVESTIGATE AND AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT.  WHEN THE
 PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, IT WAS SUBMITTED TO
 ARBITRATION.
 
    THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THE REGULATION RELEVANT TO DISPOSITION OF THE
 GRIEVANCE TO BE 5 CFR 550.112(E) WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    TIME IN TRAVEL STATUS.  TIME IN TRAVEL STATUS AWAY FROM THE OFFICIAL
 DUTY-STATION OF AN
 
    EMPLOYEE IS DEEMED EMPLOYMENT ONLY WHEN:
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) THE TRAVEL . . . (III) IS CARRIED OUT UNDER SUCH ARDUOUS AND
 UNUSUAL CONDITIONS THAT
 
    THE TRAVEL IS INSEPARABLE FROM WORK, OR (IV) RESULTS FROM AN EVENT
 WHICH COULD NOT BE
 
    SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
 
    IN APPLYING THIS REGULATION TO THE MATTER BEFORE HIM, THE ARBITRATOR
 HELD THAT THE UNION HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDITIONS
 OF THE TRAVEL WERE EITHER ARDUOUS OR UNUSUAL.  THE ARBITRATOR FURTHER
 FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL TRAVEL IN THIS CASE WAS "INDEED SCHEDULED AND
 CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY." CONCLUDING THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DID
 NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 550.112(E), THE ARBITRATOR DENIED
 THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR "ERRONEOUSLY
 MISINTERPRETED" SECTION 550.112(E)(2)(IV).  THE UNION ARGUES THAT THE
 "EVENT" WHICH COULD NOT BE SCHEDULED OR CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY WAS
 THE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT THAT NECESSITATED THE GRIEVANT'S TRAVEL.  THE
 UNION ADDITIONALLY ASSERTS THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE
 GRIEVANT'S TRAVEL TIME SINCE IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABLE AIRLINE
 SCHEDULE.  THUS, THE UNION CONCLUDES THAT ANY EVENT WHICH CANNOT BE
 CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVELY MUST RECEIVE COMPENSATION.
 
    THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE UNION HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
 ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS CONTRARY TO REGULATION.  THE ARBITRATOR FOUND,
 BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BEFORE HIM, THAT IT WAS
 ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED WHICH ACCIDENTS WOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY A
 TEAM FROM THE ACTIVITY AS OPPOSED TO AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FIELD
 OFFICE.  THEREFORE, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT, WHEN SUCH A TEAM WAS
 DISPATCHED, THE TRAVEL WAS SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL.  NOTHING
 IN THE UNION'S EXCEPTION ESTABLISHES THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CONTRARY TO
 THE APPLICABLE REGULATION.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES
 NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) AND
 SECTION 2425.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IS DENIED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 23, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES:
 
    (A) EITHER PARTY TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY FILE WITH THE
 AUTHORITY AN EXCEPTION
 
    TO ANY ARBITRATOR'S AWARD PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATION (OTHER THAN AN
 AWARD RELATING TO A
 
    MATTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7121(F) OF THIS TITLE).  IF UPON REVIEW
 THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
 
    THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT--
 
    (1) BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION;  OR
 
    (2) ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN
 PRIVATE SECTOR
 
    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS;
 
    THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS
 CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT
 
    CONSIDERS NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, OR
 REGULATIONS.