[ v12 p513 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 97 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Agency and NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 204 Union Case No. O-AR-309 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Seymour Strongin 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. The parties by stipulation submitted to arbitration the following issue: Did the Agency violate the provisions of Article XIV, Section 14B(2) /1/ in failing to promote (the grievant) on or about his anniversary date? In other words, whether or not the employee demonstrated the ability to perform at the next highest grade. (Footnote added.) The Arbitrator essentially determined that there was no basis to find that the Activity had violated the agreement, and accordingly as his award he denied the grievance. In its first exception the Union contends that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by substituting the issue of whether the Agency's denial of the grievant's promotion was arbitrary, capricious, or inherently unfair or discriminatory for the issue stipulated by the parties. The Authority concludes that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority. As noted the parties stipulated the issue for decision to be whether in denying the grievant's career ladder promotion, the Activity violated Article XIV, Section 148(2) of the agreement. Contrary to the assertion of the Union, the Authority finds that the Arbitrator, in determining that there was no basis on which to find a violation of the agreement, resolved precisely the issue stipulated by the parties. See Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local No. 1923, 5 FLRA No. 33 (1981). In contending that the Arbitrator substituted the issue of whether the Agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, unfair, or discriminatory, the Union is merely disagreeing with the Arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions to find that the Activity had not violated the agreement, and such contentions provide no basis for finding the award deficient. See, e.g., Community Services Administration and National Council of CSA Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA No. 32 (1981). In its second exception, the Union contends that the award does not draw its essence from the parties' agreement. However, this exception represents an attempt by the Union to have its own interpretation of the agreement substituted for that of the Arbitrator, and consequently this exception merely constitutes disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the agreement provision before him. Therefore, no basis is provided for finding that the award does not draw its essence from the agreement. See Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Louisville, Kentucky District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1790, 10 FLRA No. 73 (1982). Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied. 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/ Article XIV, Section 14B(2) of the parties' collective bargaining agreement pertinently provides: (B) Career ladder promotions are not automatic. However, if there is enough work at the next higher grade level to be performed, an employee has a non-discretionary right to be promoted when the following conditions are met: . . . . (2) He/She has demonstrated the ability to perform at the next higher level.