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

27:0821(89)AR - Army, Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia and NAGE Local R4-6 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR

[ v27 p821 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 27 FLRA No. 89
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1368
                         I.  Statement of the Case
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator Emer C. Flounders, 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 Department
 of the Army filed an opposition.
                  II.  Background and Arbitrator's Award
    An employee was suspended for 3 days for making a threatening
 statement about a gun after she had had a disciplinary meeting with her
 supervisor.  The Union filed a grievance protesting the suspension and
 denying that the grievant had made the statement.  The grievance was
 submitted to arbitration on the following stipulated issues:
          I.  What remarks regarding a gun were stated by the grievant to
       the supervisor . . . (and) were the remarks inappropriate?
          II.  Was the grievant disciplined twice for the same offense?
          III.  Was the disciplinary action taken for just and sufficient
    The Arbitrator stated that the positions of the parties were
 "diametrically opposed" and that his determination of the issues rested
 entirely on his findings of credibility.  Based on his credibility
 findings, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievant was properly
 disciplined for making inappropriate remarks and denied the grievance.
                             III.  Discussion
    In its exception the Union contends that the Arbitrator's award "is
 based on an erroneous interpretation of statute." In support of the
 exception, the Union argues that the Arbitrator improperly admitted
 certain evidence and failed to consider the Union's assertion that ex
 parte communications occurred between the official proposing the
 grievant's suspension and the deciding official.
    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 it is deficient on other grounds
 similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
 labor-management relations.  See Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion
 and Repair, United States Navy and Local R4-2, National Association of
 Government Employees (NAGE), 5 FLRA 235 (1981) (exceptions which
 constitute disagreement with an arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions
 on the merits of the issue before him and with his evaluation of the
 evidence and testimony presented to him, particularly the credibility of
 witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, are not a basis
 for finding an award deficient).  The Union's exception is denied.
    Issued, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1987.
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY