12:0609(113)AR - NTEU and Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- 1983 FLRAdec AR
[ v12 p609 ]
12:0609(113)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 113
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
(Union)
and
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(Agency)
Case No. O-AR-535
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
The dispute arose in connection with a series of grievances
concerning career ladder promotions. The Agency denied the grievances
and the Union invoked arbitration in each case. The parties then
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to divide the
grievances into certain categories and according to office lines within
categories, and to refer to arbitration a threshold procedural issue
involving interpretation of a particular provision of their collective
bargaining agreement. The matter referred to the Arbitrator in this
case was the order in which grievances would proceed to arbitration
hearing or, more specifically, whether the party invoking arbitration
could unilaterally choose the order in which grievances would be heard.
The Union maintained that under the same provision the grievances had to
be heard in the order in which arbitration was invoked. The Arbitrator
found that the pertinent agreement provision was silent on the issue in
dispute and that the silence presented some ambiguity. In construing
the provision, however, the Arbitrator concluded, and ruled as his
award, that the Union could proceed to arbitration hearing based upon
the grievance divisions set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding,
regardless of the order in which any individual grievance was appealed
to arbitration.
In its exceptions, the Agency contends (1) that the Arbitrator's
award failed to interpret and draw its essence from the parties'
collective bargaining agreement, and (2) that the Arbitrator violated
his jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute between the parties.
In support of its exceptions, the Agency asserts, in essence, that the
Arbitrator should have provided an interpretation of the relevant
agreement provision that would be applicable to all grievances and not
just to the grievances concerning career ladder promotions that gave
rise to this dispute and, moreover, that the Arbitrator erred in his
interpretation and application of the relevant agreement provision.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
including the contentions of the parties, the Authority concludes that
the Agency has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is
deficient. It is clear that the Agency is merely attempting to
relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and that the
thrust of the Agency's exceptions constitutes nothing more than
disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the
parties' agreement and with his reasoning and conclusions in resolving
the dispute before him. It is well-established that such disagreement
does not provide a basis for finding the award deficient. E.g.,
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1210 and Immigration
and Naturalization Service, 8 FLRA No. 17 (1982); Social Security
Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 1923, 5 FLRA No. 33 (1981); Supervisor of Shipbuilding,
Conversion Repair, United States Navy and Local R4-2, National
Association of Government Employees, 5 FLRA No. 29 (1981); American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL-CIO and Social
Security Administration, Headquarters Bureaus and Offices, 4 FLRA 112
(1980). Issued, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY