Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

30:0505(68)AR - 351st Combat Support Group, Whiteman AFB and AFGE Local 2361 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR



[ v30 p505 ]
30:0505(68)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 30 FLRA NO. 68
 30 FLRA 505
  18 DEC 1987



351ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP
WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE

                  Activity

          and

LOCAL 2361, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

                  Union

Case No. 0-AR-1409

DECISION

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator John R. Thornell. The Arbitrator found that
the employees were not entitled to overtime pay under the
parties' collective bargaining agreement as claimed in the
grievance. The exceptions were 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. We conclude that the Union has not established that
the Arbitrator misinterpreted and misapplied the parties'
agreement or that the Arbitrator failed to consider the evidence
and testimony presented. We deny the Union's exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     During an inspection of the Air Base, the Inspector General
from the Strategic Air Command conducted a surprise exercise to
test the ability of the Base to respond to emergencies. All Air
Base gates were closed for the exercise. The grievants had
finished work and were attempting to leave the Base when the
gates were closed. They were delayed from 15 to 30 
minutes while the exercise continued. The Union filed a grievance
on behalf of the employees, seeking overtime pay for the time
they had been delayed.

     The Arbitrator first determined, contrary to the Activity's
position, that the grievance was arbitrable. On the merits, the
Arbitrator found that the employees had not been "involved" in
the exercise within the meaning of the parties' agreement. He
concluded that they were not entitled to overtime pay under the
agreement and he denied the grievance.

     III. Discussion

     The Union argues that the Arbitrator misinterpreted and
misapplied the parties' agreement and failed to consider the
evidence and testimony presented.

     We have determined that the Union has failed to prove that
the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set
forth in section 7122 (a) of the Statute. Specifically, the Union
has failed to establish that the award is contrary to any law,
rule or regulation, or that it is deficient on other grounds
similar to those applied by the Federal courts in private sector
labor relations cases. See, for example, Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Portsmouth, Virginia and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees
Metal Trades Council, 26 FLRA  799 (1987) (exceptions disagreeing
with arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining
agreement provide no basis for finding an award deficient);
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2663, 29 FLRA 
No. 64 (1987) (exceptions disagreeing with an arbitrator's
evaluation of the evidence and testimony, especially the
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their
testimony, provide no basis for finding an award deficient);
Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 9161,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30  FLRA  No. 5 (1987) (exceptions which
attempt to relitigate the merits of a grievance before the
Authority and which constitute nothing more than disagreement
with an arbitrator's findings of fact, reasoning and conclusions
provide no basis for finding an award deficient). 

     IV. Decision

     For the above reasons, the Union's exceptions are denied.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1987.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member

     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY