[ v12 p238 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 54 OVERSEAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Union and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT SCHOOLS Agency Case No. O-AR-218 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Robert C. McCandless filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition. The parties submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the grievants' completion of junior college courses in auto tune-up entitled them, pursuant to the pay-setting provision of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (Article 36, section (2)(A)), to be placed in the pay category for teachers with a master's degree who complete 30 graduate or upper-level undergraduate credits (MA + 30). As his award, the Arbitrator ruled as follows: The Arbitrator finds that Auto Tune-Up courses do not fall within the intent of the negotiated language of Article 36, section (2)(A). Auto Tune-Up is not generally recognized as being oriented toward the process of educating and, as such, is not a useful learning tool to either the teacher or the school system. Therefore, it is not available for credit for pay purposes into the MA . 30 pay lane. The Union has filed exceptions to the award contending that the award is contrary to law, that the award is based on a nonfact, and that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority. As noted, however, the only issue submitted to the Arbitrator and the only issue resolved in the award was the interpretation and application of Article 36, section (2)(A) of the agreement, and all of the Union's exceptions, in essence, merely dispute the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the agreement provision. In other words, the Union is seeking to have its own interpretation of the agreement substituted for that of the Arbitrator. Thus, the Authority finds that the exceptions fail to establish that the award is deficient since they merely constitute disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' agreement in finding that the courses in question do not qualify for credit to the higher pay category. /1/ Accordingly, the exceptions are denied. See, e.g., National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1418 and U.S. International Communication Agency, Voice of America, 9 FLRA No. 137 (1982). Issued, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Furthermore, as to the specific contention that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator assertedly disregarded a prior arbitration decision in interpreting the agreement, it is well established that an alleged inconsistency with another arbitration award provides no basis for finding an award deficient. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2723 and Department of Defense, DCASMA, San Francisco, California, 6 FLRA No. 115 (1981).