Dobbins Air Force Base (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2069 (Union) 

 8 FLRA No. 55
 
 DOBBINS AIR FORCE BASE
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 2069
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-198
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR GEO. SAVAGE KING FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. SEC.
 7122(A)) (THE STATUTE) AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425).  THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.  /1/
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THIS MATTER CONCERNED A GRIEVANCE FILED
 OVER THE TERMINATION OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN HIS
 ATTITUDE AND WORK PERFORMANCE.  THE ARBITRATOR SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT
 ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD WAS TO GIVE MANAGEMENT
 AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUDGE AN EMPLOYEE IN TERMS OF PERSONAL QUALITIES SUCH
 AS ATTITUDE AND COOPERATIVENESS.  FINDING THAT THE GRIEVANT FAILED TO
 EVIDENCE THE COOPERATIVENESS AND PROPER ATTITUDE THAT ARE VITAL TO A
 SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD, THE ARBITRATOR UPHELD
 THE TERMINATION.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO
 FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL (FPM) CHAPTER 315, SUBCHAPTER 8, SECTION 8-3A
 AND A SIMILAR AIR FORCE REGULATION BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR "DID NOT SPEAK
 TO" THE REQUIREMENTS THEREIN THAT A SUPERVISOR MAKE A WRITTEN APPRAISAL
 OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE DURING THE 9TH OR 10TH MONTH OF
 THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD.  HOWEVER, A CONTENTION THAT AN ARBITRATOR "DID
 NOT SPEAK TO" A PARTICULAR REGULATION IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING HIS
 AWARD DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FINDING AN AWARD DEFICIENT.  SEE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2327 AND DEPARTMENT
 OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 5
 FLRA NO. 23 (1981) AND PRIVATE SECTOR CASES CITED THEREIN.  FURTHER, THE
 UNION HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AWARD UPHOLDING THE TERMINATION IS
 IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO THE CITED REGULATIONS.  /2/ IT IS NOTED THAT
 THE FPM SECTION CITED BY THE UNION SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT "(N)O
 PORTION OF THIS PARAGRAPH (REQUIRING A SIGNED STATEMENT SUBMITTED
 THROUGH SUPERVISORY CHANNELS CERTIFYING AS TO THE EMPLOYEE'S
 PERFORMANCE) IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS PREVENTING OR DISCOURAGING THE
 INITIATION OF REMOVAL ACTION . . . AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROBATIONARY
 PERIOD."
 
    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION 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
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ IN ITS OPPOSITION, THE AGENCY ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE UNION'S
 EXCEPTION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT UNDER SECTION 2425.2 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRES AN EXCEPTION TO AN
 ARBITRATION AWARD TO CONTAIN EVIDENCE OR RULINGS BEARING ON THE ISSUES
 BEFORE THE AUTHORITY, ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATED GROUNDS, AND
 LEGIBLE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE CASE.  HOWEVER, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS NO BASIS IN THIS CASE FOR DETERMINING THAT THE UNION'S
 EXCEPTION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT UNDER THIS SECTION OF THE
 REGULATIONS.
 
    /2/ ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY NEED NOT PASS UPON WHETHER, IN ANY
 EVENT, THE CITED AIR FORCE REGULATION CONSTITUTES A "RULE OR REGULATION"
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7122(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.