---

 31 FLRA NO. 104

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

                    Agency

         and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2600

                    Union

                                             Case No. 0-AR-1479

                          DECISION

     I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of M. Zane Lumbley. The Arbitrator found that the Activity
did not violate the parties' agreement by refusing to afford the
grievant a temporary promotion. Consequently, he dismissed the
grievance. 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 to the Union's
exceptions.

     We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator decided an issue that was not submitted and failed to
decide the issue that was submitted. Accordingly, we deny the
exceptions.

     II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant claimed that he was entitled to a temporary
promotion because he performed the duties of a higher graded
position for more than 30 days. The Activity contended that the
grievance was not grievable or arbitrable because it concerned a
classification matter. The parties submitted the arbitrability
issue to an arbitrator who ruled that the matter of whether the
grievant should have been temporarily promoted was grievable and
arbitrable. The parties then submitted the matter to arbitration
before Arbitrator Lumbley. 

     The parties were unable to agree on a statement of the issue
to be resolved. Consequently, the Arbitrator stated the issues to
be:

     1. Did the (Activity) violate the agreement by refusing to
     afford a temporary promotion and increased compensation to (the
     grievant) between January 1984 and April 1987?

     2.  If the answer to question one is in the affirmative, was the
     refusal to promote and compensate based on considerations of
     race?

     As to the first issue, the Arbitrator concluded that the
Activity had not violated the parties' collective bargaining
agreement by refusing to temporarily promote the grievant. The
Arbitrator determined that under Article 18, Section 5 of the
parties' agreement, an employee must be assigned to a higher
graded position in order to be entitled to a temporary promotion.
The Arbitrator found that the grievant had not been assigned to a
higher graded position and that, consequently, a temporary
promotion was not appropriate.

     Consistent with his resolution of the first issue, the
Arbitrator declined to decide whether the refusal to promote the
grievant was based on considerations of race. The Arbitrator
stated that because he found no  requirement under the parties'
agreement that the grievant be temporarily promoted, he would not
assess the Activity's reasons for not doing so. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

     III. Discussion

     The Union contends that the award is deficient because the
Arbitrator decided an issue that was not submitted to him and
failed to decide the issue that was submitted to him,
specifically the issue of race discrimination. The Union
maintains that by finding that the grievant was not entitled to a
temporary promotion under the parties' agreement, the Arbitrator
resolved an issue that was not before him. The Union claims that
the Arbitrator improperly considered an arbitrability issue which
had been decided in the previous arbitration before another
arbitrator. The Union asserts that the only issue which was
properly before the Arbitrator in this case was whether the
refusal to promote the grievant was motivated by racial
discrimination and not whether the issue was arbitrable. Thus,
the Union argues that the award is deficient because the
Arbitrator failed to resolve the issue of racial discrimination.


     We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth
in section 7122(a) of the Statute. 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 Federal courts in private sector
labor relations cases. The Union simply disagrees with the
Arbitrator's formulation of the issues. In view of the
substantial deference accorded an arbitrator's formulation of the
issues submitted in the absence of a stipulation, exceptions
which merely disagree with the arbitrator's formulation of the
issues provide no  basis for finding the award deficient. For
example, Air Force Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station,
California and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL -
CIO, Local 2429, 24 FLRA  516 (1986). We further note that the
Arbitrator formulated the issues before him after the parties
were unable to agree on the issues which were before the
Arbitrator.

     IV. Decision

     Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1988.

                              Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

                              Jean McKee, Member

                              FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

---