13:0440(78)AR - International Trade Commission, Washington, DC and AFGE Local 2211 -- 1983 FLRAdec AR

 13 FLRA No. 78
 
 U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
 COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Agency
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 2211, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-332
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Harold D. Jones, Jr. 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.  /1/ The Agency
 filed an opposition.
 
    The parties submitted to the Arbitrator the issue of whether the
 Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by not
 promoting the grievant to GS-14.  On the basis of the evidence
 presented, the Arbitrator as his award determined that the Agency had
 not violated the agreement by not promoting the grievant to GS-14.
 
    In its first exception the Union essentially maintains that Federal
 law pertaining to the order and nature of proof in actions under Title
 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 governed the resolution of the
 grievance and that the Arbitrator failed to properly apply such law.
 However, as noted, the specific issue submitted to and resolved by the
 Arbitrator was whether the Agency had violated the parties' collective
 bargaining agreement, as claimed by the Union, and in resolving that
 issue the Arbitrator was not required to apply Federal law pertaining to
 the proper order and nature of proof in actions filed in Federal courts
 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  See Department of Defense
 Dependents Schools, Europe and Overseas Education Association, 4 FLRA
 412, 414 (1980).  Accordingly, this exception provides no basis for
 finding the award deficient.
 
    In its second exception the Union contends that the award is
 incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory.  However, no basis is provided
 for finding incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory the Arbitrator's
 award expressly determining that the Agency had not violated the
 parties' agreement.  See, e.g., Delaware National Guard, Wilmington,
 Delaware and Association of Civilian Technicians, Delaware Chapter, 5
 FLRA No. 9 (1981).
 
    In its third exception the Union contends that "the Arbitrator
 considered the evidence presented in a superficial or selective manner
 and failed to specify any particular item in the body of direct evidence
 or the rebuttal (or the absence of direct evidence) on which his
 conclusion can be based." However, this contention constitutes nothing
 more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence
 and testimony, and it is well established that such disagreement
 provides no basis for finding the award deficient.  E.g., Social
 Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees,
 SSA, Local 1923, AFL-CIO, 7 FLRA No. 82 (1982).  Similarly, because an
 arbitrator need not specify particular items of evidence on which the
 award is based, the Union's contention in this respect also provides no
 basis for finding the award deficient.  See American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 2327 and Department of Health, Education,
 and Welfare, Social Security Administration, 5 FLRA No. 23 (1981), at 4
 and private sector cases cited therein.
 
    Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.  Issued, Washington,
 D.C., November 29, 1983
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ After the time period for filing exceptions had expired, the
 Union filed a supplemental submission essentially contending that
 evidence that has come into existence only since the arbitration hearing
 justifies reversing the award and requesting consideration of this
 evidence in resolving the exceptions to the award.  In this respect the
 Authority has expressly held that the existence of such new evidence
 provides no basis for finding the award deficient under the Statute.
 Veterans Administration Regional Office and Service Employees
 International Union, Local 556, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA No. 59 (1981), at 9.
 Consequently, and apart from other considerations, the Authority's
 decision in this case has been reached without consideration of the
 Union's supplemental submission.