U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

30:0684(85)AR - SSA and AFGE Local 1760 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR

[ v30 p684 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 30 FLRA NO. 85
 30 FLRA 684

 31 DEC 1987






Case No. 0-AR-1441


     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Fred L. Denson. The Arbitrator found that the
Agency's reprimand of the grievant for refusing to answer
questions was for just cause so as to promote the efficiency of
the service. The Union filed exceptions 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's award is based on a nonfact or that it is contrary
to law. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant was reprimanded for failure to respond to a
supervisor's questions regarding the grievant's alleged
destruction of a parking sign in a private parking garage during
duty hours. The issue decided by the Arbitrator was whether the
grievant's refusal to answer the office supervisor's questions
was justified because the office supervisor had not satisfied the
grievant that she had investigative authority pursuant to the
Agency's Standards of Conduct. The Arbitrator found that the
grievant was not justified in refusing to respond to the
supervisor's inquiries. The Arbitrator concluded that the
reprimand was for "just cause so as to promote the efficiency of
the service."

     III. Discussion

     The Union contends that the award is based on a nonfact
because the Arbitrator erred in assuming that a supervisor has
authority to conduct investigations. The Union also argues that
the award violates the grievant's Constitutional rights and the
Privacy Act because the alleged destruction of the parking sign,
although it occurred during duty hours, did not take place on
Government property and was not a proper object of Government

     " We conclude that the Union has not established 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. The Union is simply disagreeing with the
reasoning and conclusions of the Arbitrator. See, for example
Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
and American Federation of Government Employees, local 916, AFL -
CIO, 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 the arbitrator's findings of fact, reasoning and conclusions
and interpretation and application of a collective bargaining
agreement provide no basis for finding an award deficient).

     IV. Decision

     The Union's exceptions are denied.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., December 31, 1987.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member