14:0103(20)AR - Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO and AFGE Local No. 3399 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR
[ v14 p103 ]
14:0103(20)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
14 FLRA No. 20
HARRY S. TRUMAN MEMORIAL
VETERANS HOSPITAL,
COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFL-CIO),
LOCAL NO. 3399
Union
Case No. O-AR-203
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator Thomas J. Erbs 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 parties submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the
reprimand of the grievant, the local union president, for
insubordination was for just cause. In his discussion of the dispute,
the Arbitrator outlined the situation leading to the assessment of
discipline against the grievant. In early June 1980 the grievant in his
capacity as union president requested negotiations with the Activity
over official time for union business and, on June 26, 1980, advised
that he would be ready for negotiations on the morning of June 30, 1980.
On June 17, the Activity's personnel department advised the grievant
that such negotiations were not appropriate and would not take place,
that no official time would be granted for that purpose, and that the
grievant's absence from his work site without proper annual leave or
leave without pay authorization could result in disciplinary action.
Nevertheless, the grievant requested official time from his immediate
supervisor on the morning of June 30 for the purpose of such
negotiations without informing the supervisor of the directive from the
personnel department. Shortly thereafter, the grievant was given a
direct order by his immediate supervisor to return to work. This order
was disobeyed. It was not until later in the day after receiving a
written order that the grievant returned to work. Thereafter, the
grievant received the written reprimand which was the subject of the
grievance.
The Arbitrator ruled that the grievant had been insubordinate by not
obeying the first order to return to work and that the written reprimand
was appropriate. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the
grievance.
In its exception the Union principally contends that the award is
contrary to the Statute. In support the Union argues that on the
morning of June 30, the grievant was absent from his work site for the
purpose of conducting union business and that he was not subject to
being ordered to return to his work site until he was satisfied that he
had fulfilled his responsibilities as union president. Thus, the Union
maintains that the grievant was engaged in activities protected under
the Statute and the parties' collective bargaining agreement and
consequently was not subject to discipline for actions while so engaged.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
including the contentions of the Union, the Authority concludes that the
Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient. There is no
support in the record for the Union's contention that the Statute and
corresponding provisions of the agreement precluded the Arbitrator from
finding that the grievant was insubordinate. There is no authority
under the Statute to support the assertion that the grievant was immune
from discipline until such time as he determined that his
responsibilities as union president had been fulfilled. To the
contrary, nothing in the Statute operates to insulate the grievant from
discipline in the circumstances of this case. See United States Forces
Korea/Eighth United States Army and National Federation of Federal
Employees, Local 1363, 11 FLRA No. 79(1983), at 3 n.3. Accordingly, the
Union's exception is denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY