Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v51/51-145.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 11:02:01
Document Index: 682592591

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 630', '§ 630', '§ 630', '§ 630', '§ 630', '§ 630', '§ 630', '§ 630']

51:1720(145)AR - - NAGE, Local R1-109 & VA Medical Center, Newington, CT [ Veterans Administration ] - - 1996 FLRAdec AR - - v51 p1720 | FLRA
You are hereHome 51:1720(145)AR - - NAGE, Local R1-109 & VA Medical Center, Newington, CT [ Veterans Administration ] - - 1996 FLRAdec AR - - v51 p1720 51:1720(145)AR - - NAGE, Local R1-109 & VA Medical Center, Newington, CT [ Veterans Administration ] - - 1996 FLRAdec AR - - v51 p1720
[ v51 p1720 ] 51:1720(145)AR
The decision of the Authority follows: 51 FLRA No. 145 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES LOCAL R1-109 (Union) and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT (Agency) 0-AR-2741 _____ DECISION July 31, 1996 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz
Arbitrator David P. Twomey filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
exceptions. The Arbitrator sustained the grievant's suspension for being absent
without leave (AWOL); however, he reduced the penalty from 7 days without pay
to 5 days without pay. In addition, the Arbitrator ordered that all
references to insubordination be expunged from the grievant's record. For the following reasons, we set aside the portion of the award
concluding that there was just cause to suspend the grievant for 5 days without
pay and remand the case to the parties for submission to the Arbitrator, absent
settlement, to render a decision consistent with this opinion. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award The Agency suspended the grievant for 7 days for being absent
without leave (AWOL) and insubordination for failing to carry out a
supervisor's order. The employee filed a grievance over the suspension and when
the grievance was not resolved, it was submitted to arbitration. The parties
stipulated to the following issue to be resolved by the Arbitrator: Was the April 14, 1994, seven work day suspension of [the grievant]
for just cause and consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement? If not,
what shall the remedy be? Award at 1. The Arbitrator determined that the grievant's supervisor instructed the
grievant to obtain authorization to leave the facility from the Employee Health
Center. Because the grievant failed to do this, the Arbitrator rejected the
grievant's claim that he was authorized to leave the facility. The Arbitrator
sustained the AWOL charge against the grievant. However, the Arbitrator determined that there was no support for the
insubordination charge alleged by the Agency. The Arbitrator stated that the
Agency had not demonstrated that the grievant had feigned illness to avoid an
undesirable work assignment. Crediting witness testimony, including the
grievant's supervisor, the Arbitrator also stated that the grievant's actions
were not characterized as insubordinate at the time the events took place.
Therefore, the Arbitrator found that the Agency had failed to meet its burden
of proof on the insubordination charge. Accordingly, the Arbitrator ordered that the reference to
insubordination be expunged from the grievant's record; that the grievant's
7-day suspension without pay be reduced to a 5-day suspension without pay; and
that the grievant be made whole for the loss of 2 days' pay. III. Exceptions A. Union's Contentions The Union contends that the award violates 5 C.F.R. § 630.401
(1) because, under that provision, the
grievant was entitled to sick leave. The Union maintains that the Agency's
policy was inconsistent with law and the parties' collective bargaining
agreement. As a result, the Union argues that the grievant's failure to follow
the Agency's policy resulted in the grievant's inability to present
administratively acceptable evidence of his illness, as provided for in
5 C.F.R. § 630.403.(2) B. Agency's Opposition The Agency maintains that the Union's exceptions constitute mere
disagreement with the Arbitrator's award and do not provide a basis for
reviewing the award. Additionally, the Agency asserts that the award is
consistent with law and the parties' collective bargaining agreement. IV. Analysis and Conclusions A. The Award is Inconsistent With 5 C.F.R.
§ 630.401(a)(2) Section 7122(a)(1) of the Statute provides that an arbitration award
will be found deficient if it conflicts with any law, rule or regulation. For
purposes of section 7122(a)(1) of the Statute, the Authority has defined rule
or regulation to include both Government-wide and governing agency rules and
regulations. Overseas Education Association and U.S. Department of Defense
Dependents Schools, Arlington, Virginia, 51 FLRA 1246, 1251 (1996). As the
exception involves the award's consistency with an applicable Government-wide
regulation, we review the questions of law raised by the Arbitrator's award and
the Union's exceptions de novo. National Treasury Employees
Service, 50 FLRA 330, 332 (1995). The Authority will apply the Merit System Protection Board's (MSPB) law
to disciplinary actions based on AWOL. U.S. Department of the Air Force,
Robins Air Force Base, Warner Robins, Georgia and American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 987, 41 FLRA 635, 639 (1991) (Warner
Robins). Doing so, the Authority has held that an employee is entitled to
sick leave, and may not be charged as AWOL, when the employee submits
administratively acceptable evidence of illness prior to the disciplinary
action. An agency may require a medical certificate or other evidence to
support the reason for an employee's absence. Miller v. Bond, 641 F.2d
997, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1981). However, an employee's statement that he or she is
ill may satisfy the administratively acceptable standard. Warner Robins,
41 FLRA at 638. If the employee has provided the agency with administratively
acceptable evidence of incapacity, the employee's failure to follow sick leave
procedures, standing alone, does not serve as a basis on which to sustain an
AWOL charge. Id. at 639 (citing Atchley v. Department of the
Army, 46 MSPR 297, 301 (1990)). In this case, the Arbitrator sustained management's suspension of the
grievant for 5 days without pay for AWOL solely on the basis of the grievant's
failure to follow sick leave procedures, and never considered the issue of
whether the grievant presented administratively acceptable evidence of illness.
The Arbitrator stated that the Agency had not made out a case that the grievant
was feigning his illness. However, this finding does not address whether the
grievant provided sufficient evidence of illness within the meaning of 5 C.F.R.
§ 630.403. Because the record in this case does not permit us to determine whether
the grievant presented administratively acceptable evidence of illness prior to
being charged as AWOL, we also are unable to determine whether the grievant was
entitled to sick leave, and, therefore, whether the grievant properly was
charged as AWOL. Accordingly, we set aside the portion of the award concluding
that there was just cause to suspend the grievant for 5 days without pay and we
will remand this case to the parties for submission to the Arbitrator for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, absent settlement, the Arbitrator must determine whether the
grievant's statement of incapacity to his supervisor constituted
administratively acceptable evidence of illness, within the meaning of 5 C.F.R.
§ 630.403, thereby entitling the grievant to sick leave consistent with
5 C.F.R. § 630.401. B. The Award Draws Its Essence From the Parties' Collective
Bargaining Agreement Because the Arbitrator sustained the Agency's action in this case, we
will construe the Union's claim that the Agency's action is inconsistent with
the parties' agreement as a claim that the award fails to draw its essence from
the agreement. In this connection, other than a broad assertion that the
Agency's policy is inconsistent with the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, the Union provides no basis to conclude that the award is
implausible, irrational, or unconnected to the wording of the agreement.
United States Department of Labor (OSHA) and National Council of Field Labor
Locals, 34 FLRA 573, 575-76 (1990). As such, the Union has not
established that the award is inconsistent with the parties' agreement.
Accordingly, we deny this exception. V. Decision The portion of the award concluding that there was just cause to
suspend the grievant for 5 days without pay is set aside. We remand the case to
the parties for submission to the Arbitrator, absent settlement, for further
have footnotes.) 1. 5 C.F.R. § 630.401, entitled
"Grant of sick leave," provides: "An agency shall grant sick leave to an
employee when the employee is incapacitated for the performance of duties by
physical or mental illness, injury, pregnancy, or childbirth." Under this
section, an agency is required to grant sick leave to an employee when the
employee is incapacitated for any of the foregoing reasons. Wade v.
Department of Navy, 829 F.2d 1106, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Wade).
See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social
Security Administration, Kansas City, Missouri District and American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 1336, 37 FLRA 924, 928 (1990),
decision modified, 39 FLRA 22 (1991) (the Authority cited and relied on
Wade). 2. 5 C.F.R. § 630.403, entitled
"Supporting evidence," provides, in pertinent part: "An agency may grant sick
leave only when supported by evidence administratively acceptable." Federal Labor Relations Authority