[ v12 p509 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 95 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1776 Union Case No. O-AR-217 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Raymond F. Hayes filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition. A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration essentially contesting the adequacy of the official position description for engineering planning technicians (GS-802-7) at the Activity. As part of the grievance, the Union proposed a substitute position description and demanded its implementation. After an extensive and detailed review of the evidence and testimony and analysis of applicable law and regulation, the Arbitrator determined that the official position description fulfilled the standard of adequacy required by governing law and regulation. Accordingly, the Arbitrator ruled that the position description proposed by the Union was not required to be implemented. In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is contrary to law, regulation, and the collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the Union principally argues that the deficiency of the award is its "casual application" of the facts to determine that the official position description adequately describes the qualifications required for the job and the type of skills needed to perform it. The Union maintains that this determination is contrary to the regulatory requirements which call for an accurate description of duties and qualifications. The Union further maintains that because the award is contrary to regulation, the award is consequently contrary to the agreement. The Authority concludes the Union has not established that the award is contrary to law, regulation, or the agreement. As noted, the Arbitrator carefully considered the regulatory requirements for position descriptions and expressly ruled in terms of this case that the official position description was adequate. In contending that the official position description was not adequate, the Union has not substantiated that the governing regulatory provisions prescribed descriptions of duties, qualifications, and skills that unequivocally were not fulfilled by the official position description. Thus, the exceptions merely constitute disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions in determining that the official position description was adequate and constitute an attempt to relitigate that matter before the Authority. Consequently, the exceptions provide no basis for finding the award deficient and the exceptions are denied. /1/ See, e.g., Southeastern Program Service Center, Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2206, 7 FLRA No. 61 (1981). Issued, Washington, D.C., August 10, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Union also contends that the award sanctions misconduct by the Activity's civilian personnel office in overriding determinations by supervisors that the official position description was not adequate. However, this contention fails to establish that the Arbitrator's award, finding under governing law and regulation that the official position description was adequate, is deficient under the Statute.