Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v33/33-051.html
Timestamp: 2017-05-24 21:19:15
Document Index: 343194100

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3110', '§ 3110', '§ 3110', '§ 3110', '§ 3110', '§ 3110']

33:0397(51)AR - - Marine Corps Base, Civilian Personnel Division, Camp Lejeune, NC and AFGE Local 2065 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v33 p397 | FLRA
You are hereHome 33:0397(51)AR - - Marine Corps Base, Civilian Personnel Division, Camp Lejeune, NC and AFGE Local 2065 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v33 p397 33:0397(51)AR - - Marine Corps Base, Civilian Personnel Division, Camp Lejeune, NC and AFGE Local 2065 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v33 p397
[ v33 p397 ] 33:0397(51)AR
The decision of the Authority follows: 33 FLRA No. 51 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. MARINE CORPS BASE, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
DIVISION CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH
CAROLINA and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO LOCAL UNION 2065 0-AR-1558 DECISION October 27, 1988 Before Chairman Calhoun and Member
McKee. I. Statement of the Case This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Felix A. Nigro. The grievant filed a grievance alleging
that he was denied a promotion because of nepotism. The Arbitrator denied the
grievance. The Union filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Activity filed an opposition to
the exceptions. We conclude that the Union has not established that the
award is deficient because the award is contrary to law or regulation, to the
collective bargaining agreement, or to the evidence presented. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award The grievant is a Sewage Disposal Plant Operator at the
Activity. In 1982, he applied for a position as a Sewage Disposal Plant
Operator Leader, WL-9, in response to vacancy announcement #171-82. The
candidates were rated on their qualifications and a list of Highly Qualified
candidates was referred to a ranking panel. The Highly Qualified candidates
were interviewed by the ranking panel, who referred the highest ranking
candidates to the selecting official. The grievant was ranked ninth. The top
six highest ranking candidates were selected for the six available positions.
After obtaining evidence which he believed supported his charge of nepotism,
the grievant filed a grievance on August 28, 1987, alleging that his failure to
be selected for the Leader position was the result of nepotism, a violation of
Federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. § 3110. The grievance indicated that one of
the selectees was a first cousin of M.D. Davis. (The record is unclear whether
Davis acted as a member of the ranking panel, as the selecting official, or in
both capacities. Nevertheless, the issue before the Arbitrator and before us is
whether Davis' relationship, if any, to one of the selectees, violated 5
U.S.C. § 3110.) The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to
arbitration. The Arbitrator denied the grievance. The Arbitrator
concluded that the grievant sincerely believed that he was discriminated
against because of an affinity relationship between Davis and one of the
selectees. The Arbitrator further concluded, however, that 5 U.S.C. § 3110
did not prevent a public official from being involved in a selection process
which leads to the promotion of a cousin-in-law, which is how the arbitrator
defined the relationship between Davis and the selectee in this case. The
Arbitrator also denied the Activity's claim that the grievance was untimely
because the Activity had processed the grievance through all the earlier steps
of the grievance procedure "without making clear and timely objection" to the
timeliness of the grievance. Arbitrator's Decision at 5, citing Elkouri and
Elkouri, How Arbitration Works (3d ed. 1973), at 150. The Arbitrator
further rejected the Activity's contention that the substance of the grievance
had been previously resolved by an EEO complaint filed by the grievant because
the Arbitrator found that the EEO complaint was not resolved on the basis of
the nepotism issue which is the basis of the grievance. III. Exceptions The Union contends that the Arbitrator's decision is
contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 3110, that the award does not draw its essence from
the collective bargaining agreement, that the award is based on a non-fact in
finding that first cousins by affinity is inapplicable to the anti-nepotism
statute, and that the Arbitrator failed to consider pertinent and material
evidence. IV. Opposition The Agency asserts that the Arbitrator correctly
interpreted the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions and it urges the
Authority to deny the Union's exceptions as mere disagreement with the factual
findings, reasoning and conclusions of the Arbitrator. V. Discussion We conclude that the Union has not established that the
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 the Federal courts in private sector
labor relations cases. The Union's exceptions are an attempt to relitigate this
case before the Authority. They constitute nothing more than disagreement with
the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining
agreement and the Arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions.
In particular, we note that the exceptions provide no rationale for rejecting
the Arbitrator's interpretation of 5 U.S.C. § 3110. 5 U.S.C. § 3110
specifically defines the "relatives" who may not be selected by a public
official. That list includes first cousins, fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law,
sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law, but it does
not include a cousin relationship by marriage. Therefore, we conclude that the
exceptions provide no basis for finding the arbitration award deficient.
See, for example, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker
Air Force Base, Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
916, AFL-CIO, 30 FLRA 482 (1987) (an exception which constitutes nothing
more than disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation and application of
the collective bargaining agreement provides no basis for finding an award
deficient); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 85 and
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Leavenworth, Kansas, 32 FLRA 53
(1988) (exceptions which constitute nothing more than an attempt to relitigate
the merits of the grievance and disagreement with the arbitrator's findings of
fact and reasoning and conclusions provide no basis for finding an award
deficient). VI. Decision The Union's exceptions are denied. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not