---

 12 FLRA No. 54
 
 OVERSEAS EDUCATION
 ASSOCIATION
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 DEPENDENT SCHOOLS
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-218
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Robert C. McCandless filed by the Union under section 7122(a)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute (the Statute) and part
 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  The Agency filed an
 opposition.
 
    The parties submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the
 grievants' completion of junior college courses in auto tune-up entitled
 them, pursuant to the pay-setting provision of the parties' collective
 bargaining agreement (Article 36, section (2)(A)), to be placed in the
 pay category for teachers with a master's degree who complete 30
 graduate or upper-level undergraduate credits (MA + 30).  As his award,
 the Arbitrator ruled as follows:
 
          The Arbitrator finds that Auto Tune-Up courses do not fall
       within the intent of the negotiated language of Article 36,
       section (2)(A).  Auto Tune-Up is not generally recognized as being
       oriented toward the process of educating and, as such, is not a
       useful learning tool to either the teacher or the school system.
       Therefore, it is not available for credit for pay purposes into
       the MA . 30 pay lane.
 
    The Union has filed exceptions to the award contending that the award
 is contrary to law, that the award is based on a nonfact, and that the
 Arbitrator exceeded his authority.  As noted, however, the only issue
 submitted to the Arbitrator and the only issue resolved in the award was
 the interpretation and application of Article 36, section (2)(A) of the
 agreement, and all of the Union's exceptions, in essence, merely dispute
 the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the agreement
 provision.  In other words, the Union is seeking to have its own
 interpretation of the agreement substituted for that of the Arbitrator.
 Thus, the Authority finds that the exceptions fail to establish that the
 award is deficient since they merely constitute disagreement with the
 Arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' agreement in finding that
 the courses in question do not qualify for credit to the higher pay
 category.  /1/ Accordingly, the exceptions are denied.  See, e.g.,
 National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1418 and U.S.
 International Communication Agency, Voice of America, 9 FLRA No. 137
 (1982).  Issued, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1983
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Furthermore, as to the specific contention that the award is
 deficient because the Arbitrator assertedly disregarded a prior
 arbitration decision in interpreting the agreement, it is well
 established that an alleged inconsistency with another arbitration award
 provides no basis for finding an award deficient.  American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2723 and Department of Defense,
 DCASMA, San Francisco, California, 6 FLRA No. 115 (1981). 
 
 
 

---