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, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

31:1059(85)AR - Metropolitan Correctional Center and AFGE Local 3652 -- 1988 FLRAdec AR

[ v31 p1059 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

  31 FLRA NO. 85
  31 FLRA 1059

    29 MAR 1988





Case No. 0-AR-1449


     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Sheila A. Reilly. The Arbitrator determined
that the grievant had been inattentive to his duties and that
there was just cause for his suspension. 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
Arbitrator did not make incorrect findings of fact or exceed her
authority when interpreting the parties' agreement. Accordingly,
we deny the exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant was suspended for 5 days for allegedly being
inattentive to duty while assigned to prison guard duty.
Arbitration was invoked on the issue of whether there had been
just and sufficient cause for the grievant's suspension.

     Based on the evidence presented, the Arbitrator determined
that the grievant had been found sitting in an area in which he
could not perform his duty of watching the prison's building and
grounds and that discipline was warranted. She concluded that
there had been just cause for the suspension and, accordingly,
denied the grievance. 

     III. Discussion

     The Union contends that the Arbitrator did not evaluate the
evidence properly and that she exceeded her authority when
interpreting the provisions of the parties' collective bargaining

     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. 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. Rather, the Union's contentions constitute
nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of
facts, with her reasonings and conclusions, and an attempt to
relitigate the merits of the grievance before us. See, for
example, Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma and American 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 the award deficient).

     IV. Decision

     The Union's exceptions are denied.

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