---

 7 FLRA No. 15
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
 and
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-122
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
 ARBITRATOR MARVIN C. WAHL FILED BY THE UNION UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C.
 7122(A)) (THE STATUTE).
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, THIS MATTER CONCERNED THE
 GRIEVANT'S CLAIM THAT SINCE FEBRUARY 1974 SHE HAD BEEN PERFORMING WORK
 OF A HIGHER GRADE LEVEL THAN HER POSITION.  A GRIEVANCE WAS FILED THAT
 WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION REQUESTING A TEMPORARY PROMOTION
 AND BACKPAY.
 
    THE ARBITRATOR STATED THE DISPOSITIVE QUESTION TO BE "WHETHER THE
 GRIEVANT SUBSTANTIALLY AND CONSISTENTLY PERFORMED THE WORK OF THE GS-13
 (POSITION) OVER A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME." DETERMINING THAT "THE
 RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING," THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE
 GRIEVANCE.
 
    THE UNION FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD UNDER SECTION
 7122(A) OF THE STATUTE /1/ AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425).  THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.
 
    IN ITS EXCEPTIONS THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ACTIVITY'S TREATMENT OF
 THE GRIEVANT VIOLATED THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE
 AGENCY'S GUIDE FOR SUPERVISORS, AND AGENCY REGULATIONS CONCERNING
 BACKPAY;  THAT STATEMENTS IN THE AWARD "ARE DISTORTED, INCORRECT,
 MISSTATED AND A DISSERVICE TO THE GRIEVANT WHO LABORED DILIGENTLY TO
 ACHIEVE AN UNBIASED, UNPREJUDICED AIRING OF HER ALLEGATIONS;" THAT BUT
 FOR "FALSE EVIDENCE" AND "UNTRUTHS" OF MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, THE CASE
 WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT;  AND THAT THE ACTIVITY'S TREATMENT OF THE
 GRIEVANT AND THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD VIOLATES CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS,
 THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL AND PRINCIPLES OF MERIT PAY.  IN SUPPORT OF
 ITS EXCEPTIONS, THE UNION MAKES EXTENSIVE REFERENCES TO ITS VIEW OF THE
 FACTS OF THIS MATTER AND TO VARIOUS REGULATIONS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY
 BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR.
 
    AS NOTED, THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE GRIEVANCE FINDING ON THE BASIS OF
 THE EXTENSIVE RECORD IN THIS MATTER THAT THE GRIEVANT HAD FAILED TO
 DEMONSTRATE THAT SHE HAD SUBSTANTIALLY AND CONSISTENTLY PERFORMED WORK
 OF A HIGHER GRADE LEVEL OVER A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.  THE UNION
 HAS NOT SHOWN IN ITS EXCEPTIONS HOW THIS AWARD IS IN ANY MANNER
 DEFICIENT UNDER THE STATUTE.  RATHER, IT IS CLEAR FROM A FULL
 EXAMINATION OF THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS THAT THE UNION IS IN EFFECT
 DISAGREEING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH HIS
 REASONING AND CONCLUSIONS IN ARRIVING AT HIS AWARD AND IS ATTEMPTING TO
 RELITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE GRIEVANCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY.  SUCH
 ASSERTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT.  AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206 AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
 AND HUMAN SERVICE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTER, 6 FLRA NO. 103(1981);  NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
 ADMINISTRATION AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 2284, 3 FLRA NO. 35(1980).  THEREFORE, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS PROVIDE NO
 BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) AND SECTION
 2425.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE UNION'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DENIED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 30, 1981.
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES:
 
    (A) EITHER PARTY TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY FILE WITH THE
 AUTHORITY AN EXCEPTION TO ANY ARBITRATOR'S AWARD PURSUANT TO THE
 ARBITRATION (OTHER THAN AN AWARD RELATING TO A MATTER DESCRIBED IN
 SECTION 7121(F) OF THIS TITLE).  IF UPON REVIEW THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
 THE AWARD IS 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-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS;  THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND
 MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT CONSIDERS
 NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, OR REGULATIONS. 
 
 
 

---