32:0330(52)AR - - Library of Congress and AFSCME Local 2910 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v32 p330
[ v32 p330 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
32 FLRA No. 52
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2910
Case No. 0-AR-1476
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Marlyn E. Lugar. The Arbitrator determined that the evidence established that the grievant deliberately refused to comply with her supervisor's order to report to work at a particular time for which the grievant was given a 3-day suspension. The Arbitrator, therefore, dismissed the grievant's appeal of the 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. The Agency did not file an opposition.
We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is contrary to law or that the Arbitrator improperly failed to consider issues presented by the Union. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The issue before the Arbitrator was whether the Agency had just cause to suspend the grievant for failing to report to work on July 11, 1986, at 8:30 a.m., after having been directed to report at that time by her immediate supervisor.
In July, 1986, the hours of operation in the Agency's Reading Room, which is open to the public, were expanded following an earlier cutback in hours. The grievant, a Union steward, was advised orally and in writing that she was scheduled to report for duty at 8:30 a.m. on July 11. The grievant reported for duty at 9:05 a.m. Thereafter, the Agency proposed to suspend the grievant for 5 days for insubordination. The suspension was later reduced to 3 days.
The Union's position during the arbitration proceeding was that the suspension was in retaliation for the grievant having engaged in protected union activity. More particularly, the Union argued that the grievant was a very active and vocal Union official and was known to management as such. The Union also argued that the grievant specifically questioned the Agency's failure to properly notify employees, under the terms of the parties' collective agreement, of the change in hours of operation which resulted in changes in work schedules, including that of the grievant.
The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant deliberately refused to comply with her supervisor's order to report to work at 8:30 a.m. and that the suspension was based upon that refusal. In reaching this conclusion, the Arbitrator found that "[t]he testimony [at the hearing] as to how active the [grievant] had been as a member of the Union was insufficient to establish a charge of antiunion discrimination with reference to the [grievant's] suspension." Award at 7. The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's contention that the suspension was in reprisal for statements made by the grievant to the effect that the change in work schedules was not binding because of the failure to provide advance notification of the change under the parties' agreement. Award at 11.
The Union contends that the award is deficient for two reasons: (1) the Arbitrator used rules of procedure at the arbitration hearing that are contrary to current law; and (2) the award is contrary to law pertaining to prohibited personnel practice cases under 5 U.S.C. º 2302(b)(9), and is outside the parameters of Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) chapter 752. The Union also asserts that the Arbitrator failed to consider issues presented in the Union's post-hearing brief.
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.
The Union asserts that the Arbitrator used rules of procedure that are contrary to current law. The Union argues that the Arbitrator did not permit the grievant to impeach the testimony of witnesses who, while called as witnesses by the Agency, were considered to be the grievant's witnesses when their testimony during cross-examination was not relevant to their testimony during direct examination. The Union notes that the rule against impeaching one's own witnesses is no longer followed in Federal courts. Instead, Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides for the impeachment of one's own witnesses. Title 28, U.S.C.A. Rule 607 ("The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.").
The Union's exception concerns the conduct of the arbitration hearing. An arbitration award is deficient if the excepting party establishes that the arbitrator failed to conduct a fair hearing by refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence. See, for example, National Border Patrol Council and National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council and United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 3 FLRA 401 (1980). Furthermore, in cases involving a question as to the fairness of a hearing, the arbitrator has considerable latitude in the conduct of that hearing. Id. at 404. The fact that the arbitrator has conducted the hearing in a manner that a party finds objectionable does not in and of itself provide a basis for finding an award deficient. See Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA 20 (1987) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2610 and Veterans Administration Medical and Regional Office Center, Togus, Maine, 30 FLRA 1153 (1988).
In this case, the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's ruling concerning the impeachment of witnesses resulted in an unfair hearing. We note especially the Arbitrator's finding that the grievant was not prejudiced because