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

27:0347(46)AR - NFFE Local 1745 and VA -- 1987 FLRAdec AR

[ v27 p347 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 27 FLRA No. 46
                                            Case No. O-AR-1333
                         I.  Statement of the Case
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator John A. Bailey 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.
                  II.  Background and Arbitrator's Award
    The grievant received an overall performancce appraisal rating of
 "fully satisfactory" for the period April 1, 1985, through March 31,
 1986.  As to five key responsibilities, she was considered to have "met"
 the prescribed levels of achievement for three of them while having
 "exceeded" the prescribed levels for the two others.  If she had been
 deemed to have exceeded the prescribed level of achievement for each of
 the five key responsibilities, her rating would have been one step
 higher.  She grieved her rating, and the matter was submitted to
    The Arbitrator stated the issue before him as whether the performance
 standards for three of the grievent's key responsibilities were applied
 improperly.  He noted that in order for the grievant to prevail, it
 would be necessary for him to reverse the supervisor's judgment on all
 three of the responsibilities in question.  The Arbitrator found in
 favor of the grievant with regard to one responsibility, found in favor
 of the Agency as to a second responsibility, and made no finding as to
 the third responsibility.  The Arbitrator concluded that since the
 grievant's supervisor had correctly rated the grievant as to at least
 one of the responsibilities, the grievance must be denied.
                             III.  Discussion
    The Union contends that the award is deficient because it is contrary
 to law and regulation, in particular 5 C.F.R. Part 430 and Veterans
 Administration Regulation MP-5, Part 1, Chapter 430.  The Union contends
 that the award was based on information that should not have been
 entered into the record before the Arbitrator.
    We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the
 Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
 section 7122(a) of the Statute;  that is, that the award is contrary to
 any law, rule or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
 grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
 labor-management relations.  See, for example, National Border Patrol
 Council and National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council and
 United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization
 Service, 3 FLRA 401, 404 (1980) (liberal admission of testimony and
 evidence is the usual practice in arbitration and contention that
 arbitrator erred in admitting certain evidence provides no basis for
 finding an award deficient under the Statute);  Local 1919, American
 Federation of Government Employees and Veterans Administration National
 Cemetery, Farmingdale, Long Island, New York, 12 FLRA 605 (1983)
 (contentions which merely constitute disagreement with the arbitrator's
 evaluation of the evidence provide no basis for finding an award
 deficient).  Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied.
    Issued, Washington, D.C. May 29, 1987.
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier, III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY