U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

30:1204(133)AR - AFGE Local 916 and Tinker AFB, AFLC -- 1988 FLRAdec AR

[ v30 p1204 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

  30 FLRA NO. 133
   30 FLRA 1204

  29 JAN 1988






Case No. O-AR-1438


I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Barnett M. Goodstein. The Arbitrator
determined that the Activity's reprimand of the grievant for
loafing on duty was too severe, but that discipline was
warranted. He directed that the reprimand be replaced with an
oral admonishment. 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 contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
agency regulations, or the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, or that the Arbitrator made incorrect findings and
failed to conduct a fair hearing. Accordingly, we deny the

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant was reprimanded for loafing on duty.
Arbitration was invoked on the issue of whether the reprimand was
in accordance with applicable law and regulation and the spirit
and intent of the collective bargaining agreement and was for
just cause.

     Based on the evidence presented, the Arbitrator determined
that the grievant had been loafing on the job as, charged and
that discipline was warranted. He concluded that a
reprimand was too severe but that just cause existed to orally
admonish the grievant. Accordingly, he directed that the
reprimand be replaced by an oral admonishment.

III. Discussion

     The Union contends that the award is contrary to the U.S.
Constitution and that the Arbitrator failed to conduct a fair
hearing because the Arbitrator was not impartial, denied the
grievant his right to due process and to confront witnesses
against him, and refused to compel the Activity to make witnesses
requested by the Union available. The Union also contends that
the Arbitrator and management violated the agreement and agency
regulations and that the Arbitrator made incorrect findings.

     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 the award is deficient on other grounds
similar to those applied by the Federal courts in private sector
labor relations cases. The Union is simply attempting to
relitigate this case before us. See, for example, Oklahoma Air
Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and America
Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, 30  FLRA  20 (1987) (exceptions which attempt to
relitigate the merits of the case before the Authority and which
constitute nothing more than disagreement with the arbitrator's
findings of fact, evaluation of the evidence and testimony,
interpretation and application of the collective bargaining
agreement, and conduct of the hearing, provide no basis for
finding an award deficient).

IV. Decision

     The Union's exceptions are denied.

     Issued, Washington, D.C. January 29, 1988

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member