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.         

34:---(83)AR - SCOTT AFB, ILLINOIS and NAGE, LOCAL R7-23 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR

[ v34 p--- ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

34 FLRA NO. 83

                     SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE


                         LOCAL R7-23



                        January 22, 1990

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Edward W. Garnholz. The Arbitrator denied a
grievance concerning a performance rating.

     The National Association of Government Employees, Local
R7-23 (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.
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, (the Agency) did not file an
opposition to the exceptions.

     For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the
Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award
deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant worked as a Logistics Management Specialist,
346 series, in the plans section of the Logistics
Directorate of the Air Force Communications Command. The grievant
alleged that his performance rating of fully successful for the
period ending June 30,  1987, was improper and inaccurate. The
grievant contended that he had continued to perform as well as he
had during the 1985-1986 rating period when his rating was
"excellent." Further, the grievant contended that he was not
counseled regarding any decline in performance or deficiencies in
his work. In addition, the grievant complained that his
supervisor "was not present long enough to ever give him a fair
appraisal of his work" for the period in question. Award at 9.
When the parties did not resolve the grievance, it was submitted
to arbitration.

     The issues before the Arbitrator were: (1) "Whether the
Grievant's performance rating for the period July 1, 1986 to June
30,  1987 accurately reflects the quality of his work performance
for that period?" and (2) "(W)hether the Grievant's performance
rating for the relevant period is inaccurate, and, if so, should
he receive priority consideration for promotion as a remedy?"
Award at 10.

     The Arbitrator concluded that the supervisor had ample
opportunity to observe and review the grievant's work record even
though the supervisor was out of town approximately 30  percent
of the time. The Arbitrator further found that the grievant's
supervisor cited major deficiencies in the grievant's work and
noted that the supervisor's testimony was corroborated by the
previous supervisor who supervised the grievant from July 1986 to
December 1986.

     The Arbitrator also found that the grievant "offered no
evidence other than his own self-serving testimony" that his
evaluation should be excellent. Award at 12. The Arbitrator
determined that the grievant's performance rating was "fairly and
evenly evaluated" for the relevant period. Id. at 13.
Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

     III. Exceptions

     The Union contends the "award is deficient because it is
based upon a non-fact which is objectively determinable and which
was central to the award." Exceptions to Award at 1.
Specifically, the Union argues that the Arbitrator's conclusion
that the Union presented no evidence other than the grievant's
testimony to support a higher rating is contrary to evidence in
the record. The Union alleges the Arbitrator did not consider the
"substantiation of ratings," or written narrative, section of the
grievant's performance appraisal. Union's Brief in
Support of Exceptions at 3. The Union contends that the narrative
showed that the grievant's performance exceeded the standards in
two elements. According to the Union, the Arbitrator never
discussed or considered this evidence.

     IV. Discussion

     The Statute sets forth the grounds on which an arbitration
award will be found deficient. Under section 7122(a), an award
will be found deficient: (1) because it is contrary to any law,
rule, or regulation; or (2) on other grounds similar to those
applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations
cases. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the Union
fails to establish that the award is deficient on any ground set
forth in the Statute.

     The Union asserts the award is based on a non-fact. The
Union contends the Arbitrator failed to consider certain evidence
in the grievant's performance appraisal. The Union's contentions
do not establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient based
on a non-fact. Compare American Federation of Government
Employees. Local 1923. AFL - CIO and Health Care Financing
Administration. Department of Health and Human Services, 33 FLRA 
88, 91-92 (1988) (agency's non-fact argument constituted
disagreement with an arbitrator's findings of fact and his
interpretation and application of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement and provided no basis for finding an award
deficient) with U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal,
Alabama and Local 1858, American Federation of Government
Employees. AFL - CIO, 18 FLRA  374, 375-76 (1985) (award
deficient because the central fact underlying the award, the
existence of a collective bargaining agreement, was concededly
erroneous and, in effect, was a gross mistake of fact but for
which the arbitrator would have reached a different result).

     The Union's assertions amount to mere disagreement with the
Arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence and his factual findings
and do not provide a basis for setting the award aside.
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions will be denied.

     V. Decision

     The Union's exceptions are denied.