Department of the Army, Troop Support Agency, Midwest Commissary Field Office, Fort Riley, Kansas (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2324, Fort Riley, Kansas (Union)
[ v08 p258 ]
08:0258(57)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
8 FLRA No. 57
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
TROOP SUPPORT AGENCY,
MIDWEST COMMISSARY FIELD
OFFICE, FORT RILEY, KANSAS
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2324, FORT RILEY,
KANSAS
Union
Case No. O-AR-230
DECISION
THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR STANFORD C. MADDEN 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.
ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES WERE BEFORE
HIM FOR RESOLUTION AS A RESULT OF THE GRIEVANCE FILED IN THIS CASE:
1. WHETHER THE AGENCY ASSIGNED WORK EQUITABLY AMONG WAE
(WHEN-ACTUALLY-EMPLOYED) PERSONNEL AND PART-TIME PERSONNEL WHO HAVE
THE SAME JOB DESCRIPTION.
2. WHETHER WOMEN ARE NOT ASSIGNED CERTAIN TASKS TO WHOM ONLY MALE
PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED.
3. WHETHER THE GRIEVANT'S JOB DESCRIPTION IS ACCURATE AND WHETHER
THE STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE APPLY TO THE JOB WHICH GRIEVANT IS PERFORMING.
IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING HIS AWARD THE ARBITRATOR DISCUSSED
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE THREE
ISSUES AND CONCLUDED THAT "(U)NDER THE ISSUES AS DEFINED BY THE PARTIES'
SUBMISSION AGREEMENT, NO VIOLATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT WAS PROVED." ACCORDINGLY, HE DENIED THE GRIEVANCE.
THE UNION TAKES EXCEPTION TO THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
TO EACH OF THE THREE ISSUES. IN ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION STATES THAT
THE ARBITRATOR "DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS" AND THEREFORE THE
GRIEVANT DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR HEARING, THAT THE ARBITRATOR "FAILED TO
CONSIDER EVIDENCE" ELICITED FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OF THE WITNESSES,
AND THAT THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY BY REFERRING TO THE CIVIL
SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978. NONE OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS PROVIDES A
BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE UNION'S
EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS THAT THE UNION IS ATTEMPTING TO
RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AND THAT THE
THRUST OF THE EXCEPTIONS CONSTITUTES DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S
REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BEFORE
HIM, WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT.
E.G., ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS AND NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-72, 7 FLRA NO. 124 (1982).
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS ARE 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