34:0293(54)AR - ARMY, PINE BLUFF ARSENAL PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS and AFGE, LOCAL 953 -- 1990 FLRAdec AR

 34 FLRA NO. 54



                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                      PINE BLUFF ARSENAL
                     PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS

                              and

          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                           LOCAL 953

                           0-AR-1592

			   DECISION

     			January 12, 1990

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator James B. Giles. A grievance was filed by the
Union over the Activity's decision to change the administrative
workweek of its Production Readiness Division. The Arbitrator
found that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement,
the Union did not have a "veto right" over management's change of
workweeks. Arbitrator's Award at 5. Accordingly, he denied the
grievance.

     The Union filed an exception under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
on the asserted ground that the arbitration hearing had been
"unfair and disorderly" and that the award was not "properly
documented." The Pine Bluff Arsenal (the Activity) did not file
an opposition to the exception.

     We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the
Union's exception. 

II. Background and the Arbitrator's Award

     In October 1987, the Activity split the Production Readiness
Division into two crews. One crew was assigned a workweek of
Monday through Thursday and the other crew was assigned a
workweek of Wednesday through Saturday. The Union filed a
grievance opposing the change. The grievance was submitted to
arbitration on the stipulated issues of (1) whether the grievance
was arbitrable, and (2) whether management had the right to
change administrative workweeks in order to improve efficiency
and decrease overtime costs. Arbitrator's Award at 2.

     The Arbitrator found that the grievance was arbitrable. On
the merits of the grievance, he found that under the management
rights provision of the parties' collective bargaining agreement,
the Union had "no veto right" over management's change of
administrative workweeks which were designed to improve
efficiency and decrease overtime costs. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator denied the grievance. Arbitrator's Award at 5.

III. The Union's Exception

     The Union contends that the Arbitrator did not conduct a
fair and orderly hearing. The Union maintains that its case was
not properly heard or "documented" by the Arbitrator. The Union
requests a new hearing before another arbitrator.

IV. Discussion

     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
established 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 asserts that the Arbitrator denied the Union a
fair hearing. To support this contention the Union provided
examples of what it believed was the Arbitrator's inattention
during the hearing. However, an arbitrator has considerable
latitude in the conduct of a hearing. The fact that an arbitrator
conducted the hearing in a manner which one party finds
objectionable does not, in and of itself, provide a basis for
finding an award deficient unless it can be established that the
arbitrator failed to conduct a fair hearing by refusing to hear
pertinent or material evidence  or improperly prejudiced
a party in some other way. See, for example, Library of Congress
and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
Local 2910, 32 FLRA  330 (1988). Therefore, the Union's
contentions regarding the manner in which the Arbitrator
conducted the hearing do not provide a basis for finding the
award deficient.

     We also reject the Union's contention that the award was not
"properly documented." The Arbitrator was not obligated in the
instant case to set forth findings or rationale more extensive
than he did to support the award denying the grievance. See
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 171 and
Federal Correctional Institution, 32 FLRA  965 (1988) (discussing
Wissman v. Social Security Administration, 848 F.2d 176 (Fed.
cir. 1988), in which the court stated that there is no general
statutory obligation that an arbitrator set forth specific
findings).

V. Decision

     The Union's exception is denied.