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


[ v29 p1326]
The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 108






Case No. 0-AR-1408


I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Edna E. J. Francis 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. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exceptions are denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Union filed a two-part grievance alleging that the Activity violated various articles of the parties' agreement. The first aspect of the grievance alleged that the Activity improperly deducted an overpayment of travel money from the grievant's paycheck. The second aspect alleged that the Activity violated the parties' agreement by not allowing the grievant overtime for his attendance as a Union representative at a national labor-management relations committee meeting that continued beyond his normal duty hours. It also alleged that the grievant was entitled to travel and per diem expenses for his trip to and from the meeting.

The grievance was submitted to arbitration. As to the first aspect, the Arbitrator found that it encompassed two areas of dispute: (1) whether an unfair labor practice charge previously filed by the Union barred the grievance, and (2) if not, whether the Activity violated the grievant's rights by failing to treat its overpayment to the grievant as an indebtedness matter. The Arbitrator found that no bar existed to the filing of the grievance in this case. On the merits of the first issue, the Arbitrator found that the record lacked evidence to support the grievant's claim that the overpayment should be treated as an indebtedness, and she denied this aspect of the grievance.

As to the second aspect, the Arbitrator determined that it was clear from the parties' agreement that official time for meetings would be granted only for the period of time that the employee was in a duty status and that no other costs would by assumed by the Activity. Thus, she concluded that the grievant was not entitled under the parties' agreement to overtime or travel and per diem expenses and she denied this aspect of the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the part of the award denying the payment of overtime to the grievant for attendance at a national labor-management meeting is contrary to law, rule and regulation, specifically 5 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2)(B) and 29 U.S.C. 201.

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 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. The Union's arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the parties' agreement. We consistently have held that such disagreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient. See, for example, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29, 22 FLRA No. 15 (1986). See also Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Warner Robins, Georgia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987, 23 FLRA No. 35 (1986) (union exception was denied where arbitrator determined that a union representative was not entitled to overtime compensation for the time he attended a meeting that was scheduled after his workday had ended). Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1987.

Jerry L.Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member