Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

12:0509(95)AR - Air Force, Williams AFB, AZ and AFGE Local 1776 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR

[ v12 p509 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 12 FLRA No. 95
                                            Case No. O-AR-217
    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
    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
    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,
                                       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.