14:0103(20)AR - Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO and AFGE Local No. 3399 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR
[ v14 p103 ]
14:0103(20)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
14 FLRA No. 20 HARRY S. TRUMAN MEMORIAL VETERANS HOSPITAL, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFL-CIO), LOCAL NO. 3399 Union Case No. O-AR-203 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Thomas J. Erbs filed by the Union 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 parties submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the reprimand of the grievant, the local union president, for insubordination was for just cause. In his discussion of the dispute, the Arbitrator outlined the situation leading to the assessment of discipline against the grievant. In early June 1980 the grievant in his capacity as union president requested negotiations with the Activity over official time for union business and, on June 26, 1980, advised that he would be ready for negotiations on the morning of June 30, 1980. On June 17, the Activity's personnel department advised the grievant that such negotiations were not appropriate and would not take place, that no official time would be granted for that purpose, and that the grievant's absence from his work site without proper annual leave or leave without pay authorization could result in disciplinary action. Nevertheless, the grievant requested official time from his immediate supervisor on the morning of June 30 for the purpose of such negotiations without informing the supervisor of the directive from the personnel department. Shortly thereafter, the grievant was given a direct order by his immediate supervisor to return to work. This order was disobeyed. It was not until later in the day after receiving a written order that the grievant returned to work. Thereafter, the grievant received the written reprimand which was the subject of the grievance. The Arbitrator ruled that the grievant had been insubordinate by not obeying the first order to return to work and that the written reprimand was appropriate. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator denied the grievance. In its exception the Union principally contends that the award is contrary to the Statute. In support the Union argues that on the morning of June 30, the grievant was absent from his work site for the purpose of conducting union business and that he was not subject to being ordered to return to his work site until he was satisfied that he had fulfilled his responsibilities as union president. Thus, the Union maintains that the grievant was engaged in activities protected under the Statute and the parties' collective bargaining agreement and consequently was not subject to discipline for actions while so engaged. Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority, including the contentions of the Union, the Authority concludes that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient. There is no support in the record for the Union's contention that the Statute and corresponding provisions of the agreement precluded the Arbitrator from finding that the grievant was insubordinate. There is no authority under the Statute to support the assertion that the grievant was immune from discipline until such time as he determined that his responsibilities as union president had been fulfilled. To the contrary, nothing in the Statute operates to insulate the grievant from discipline in the circumstances of this case. See United States Forces Korea/Eighth United States Army and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363, 11 FLRA No. 79(1983), at 3 n.3. Accordingly, the Union's exception is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., March 16, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY