17:0278(39)AR - Justice, Federal Prison System, Federal Correctional Facility, Fort Worth, TX and AFGE Local 1298 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR
[ v17 p278 ]
17:0278(39)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 39
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM,
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
Facility
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1298, AFL-CIO
Union
Case No. O-AR-859
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Joe D. Woodward 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 grievant contested a three-day suspension, alleging that the
suspension was motivated solely by anti-union animus. In support of
this contention, the Union presented evidence of an alleged pattern of
Agency harrassment of other Union officials. The Arbitrator issued the
following award:
The grievance is sustained and full restitution shall be made
to the grievant for the three days lost as a result of the
wrongful suspension. All documentation of said suspension should
be removed from the grievant's file and the Agency is ordered to
cease further harrassment of the Union officials in the discharge
of their official Union responsibilities and duties.
The Agency excepts only to that portion of the award ordering the
Agency " . . . to cease further harrassment of Union officials in the
discharge of their official Union responsibilities and duties." Noting
that the grievance concerned only the three-day suspension of one Union
official, the Agency asserts, inter alia, that the Arbitrator exceeded
his authority by issuing an affirmative remedy as to other Union
officials.
In response to this exception, the Union asserts that the Arbitrator
acted within his broad powers to fashion remedies. Moreover, the Union
argues that the issue of harrassment of other Union officials was in
fact before the Arbitrator. In support of this claim, the Union notes
the following excerpts from the actual grievance submission:
1. The grievance included a claim that the contested
suspension was issued " . . . to intimidate other union officials
at this institution and its members . . . " and
2. The Union requested the following remedy: "Full
restitution of three days lost on suspension, removal of all
documentation, no further interference or coercion with the threat
of disciplinary action in the functions of this Local and its
responsibilities."
Upon careful review of the arguments and the record, the Authority
finds that the award is deficient in that it exceeds the Arbitrator's
authority. While it does not appear that the parties stipulated the
issue, the Arbitrator stated the issue in the following limited terms:
"Did the Agency violate the contract when it suspended the grievant on
February 21, 1984, for three days?" While the Arbitrator considered
extensive evidence of an alleged pattern of anti-union conduct, this
evidence was only relevant to proving that the suspension in question
was pretextual. Nor does the above cited grievance submission language
bring the issue of other Union officials before the Arbitrator; indeed,
the requested remedy is clearly limited to the grievant and does not
request harrassment findings as to other Union officials.
Under the facts presented, the Authority concludes that the
Arbitrator exceeded his authority when he issued an affirmative order as
to Union officials other than the grievant. American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National Immigration and Naturalization
Service Council and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 15 FLRA
No. 76 (1984). To that limited extent, the award is deficient and is
modified by striking "Union official" and "their" from the award and
substituting, respectively, "the grievant" and "his." /1/ Issued,
Washington, D.C., March 20, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ In view of this decision, it is not necessary to address the
Agency's other exceptions to the award.