Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia Regional Office (Activity) and National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 22 (Union) 

 8 FLRA No. 58
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION, CHAPTER 22
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-182
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR HERBERT FISHGOLD FILED BY THE AGENCY 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 UNION FILED AN OPPOSITION.
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED
 CHALLENGING THE ONE-DAY SUSPENSION OF THE GRIEVANT.  REJECTING THE
 ACTIVITY'S ARGUMENT THAT IT HAD ACTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH AN
 ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE, THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD
 FAILED TO GIVE THE PROPER ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE SUSPENSION AS REQUIRED
 BY THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, AS HIS
 AWARD, THE ARBITRATOR SUSTAINED THE GRIEVANCE.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTION THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD DOES NOT DRAW ITS
 ESSENCE FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  IN SUPPORT THE AGENCY
 PRINCIPALLY ARGUES THAT THE ARBITRATOR WENT OUTSIDE THE PARTIES'
 AGREEMENT AND IGNORED EVIDENCE OF A PAST PRACTICE REGARDING THE
 NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES BEFORE SUSPENSIONS WERE IMPOSED.  THE AGENCY
 FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THE AGREEMENT'S 15-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT
 APPLY AND THAT SUSTAINING THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS CASE WITHOUT A
 DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS IS IMPROPER UNDER THE AGREEMENT.  ACCORDING TO
 THE AGENCY, THE ARBITRATOR CONSEQUENTLY HAS ALTERED THE PARTIES'
 AGREEMENT AND IMPOSED AN OBLIGATION NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR UNDER
 THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.
 
    THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
 DEFICIENT UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE AGENCY IS ESSENTIALLY DISAGREEING WITH
 THE ARBITRATOR'S INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AGREEMENT,
 INCLUDING HIS REJECTION OF THE CLAIMED PAST PRACTICE, AND WITH THE
 REMEDY HE FORMULATED FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT.  SUCH
 DISAGREEMENT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AWARD DOES NOT DRAW ITS ESSENCE
 FROM THE AGREEMENT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
 DEFICIENT.  E.G., LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1429, 5 FLRA NO. 35 (1981);  VETERANS
 ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-109, 5 FLRA NO. 12 (1981).
 ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'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