At this time FLRA remains fully operational. Effective Friday July 31, 2020, the agency now extends the prohibition on in-person filings indefinitely.  

See details: here.

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

13:0108(27)AR - Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, Virginia and AFGE Local 2052, Petersburg, Virginia -- 1983 FLRAdec AR

[ v13 p108 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 13 FLRA No. 27
                                            Case No. O-AR-550
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator E. C. Griffith filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
 the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
    The dispute in this matter concerns the suspension of the grievant
 for three days because of his alleged use of abusive and obscene
 language toward a supervisory official.  The issue submitted to
 arbitration was whether the suspension was for just and sufficient
 cause.  The Arbitrator determined, among other things, that the grievant
 violated applicable rules and regulations of the Activity;  that the
 grievant failed to seek redress within the orderly processes of the
 parties' agreement, but resorted to conduct that subjected him to
 disciplinary action;  and that the Activity did not violate the
 provision in the parties' agreement pertaining to suspensions.  The
 Arbitrator concluded that just and sufficient cause had been established
 for the grievant's suspension.  Accordingly, as his award, the
 Arbitrator denied the grievance.
    In its exceptions, the Union essentially contends that (1) the award
 violates, and does not draw its essence from, the provision of the
 parties' agreement pertaining to suspensions;  (2) the Arbitrator
 exceeded his authority by in effect modifying that provision;  (3) the
 award is based on a nonfact because the Arbitrator erred in finding that
 the Activity's rules of conduct were applicable;  (4) the award violates
 the grievant's statutory rights because the Arbitrator failed to give
 due consideration to the Union's arguments that the grievant was
 disciplined primarily for his union activities and was exercising his
 protected representational rights in this case, i.e., representing
 himself in the incident that gave rise to the suspension;  and (5) the
 Arbitrator's ruling on the fairness of the discipline is erroneous.
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
 including the contentions of the parties, the Authority concludes that
 the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is in any
 way deficient.  It is clear that the Union is merely attempting to
 relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and that the
 thrust of the Union's assertions essentially constitutes nothing more
 than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact and his
 specific reasoning and conclusions based on the evidence and testimony
 before him, and generally with his interpretation and application of the
 parties' agreement.  Consequently, the exceptions do not provide any
 basis for finding the award deficient.  See Department of Defense
 Dependents Schools and Overseas Education Association, 3 FLRA 888
 (1980);  Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Hawaii Federal Employees Metal
 Trades Council, 10 FLRA No. 8 (1982);  United States Immigration and
 Naturalization Service and American Federation of Government Employees
 (National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council), AFL-CIO, 10
 FLRA No. 113 (1982).
    Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.  Issued, Washington,
 D.C., September 27, 1983
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY