Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 90
U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Ralph H. Johnson Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina and NAGE, Local R5-136 (Robinson, Arbitrator), 0-AR-3373 (Decided September 26, 2001)
The Arbitrator sustained a grievance over the denial of sick leave for the grievant. The Authority concluded that the Agency's exceptions failed to establish that the award was deficient.
As to the contention that the award was contrary to the Statute, the Authority noted that the Agency did not rely on a specific section of the Statute nor did it explain in detail why the award was contrary to the Statute. The Authority noted that an exception claiming a violation of law must contain a description of facts and circumstances to support its exception. A general assertion, absent more, is not sufficient to support a contention that an award is contrary to the Statute.
The Authority noted that 5 C.F.R. part 339 concerns medical qualification determinations, or medical fitness for duty examinations. It does not pertain to granting sick leave. Accordingly, it concluded that the Agency's reliance on part 339 was misplaced. With regard to the Agency regulation, the Authority found that parties agreed that the grievant did not have a history of sick leave abuse and was not subject to any leave restriction, therefore, that part of the Agency's regulations was not applicable here.
Also rejected was the allegation that the Arbitrator failed to conduct a fair hearing. The Authority found that the Agency's exceptions constituted disagreement with the Arbitrator's admission and evaluation of evidence and his credibility determinations. Generally speaking, disagreement with an arbitrator's findings of fact and evaluation of evidence and testimony, including the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, provides no basis for finding an award deficient.
With regard to the allegation that the award was contrary to public policy, the Authority noted that the Agency had not demonstrated that the award was deficient. The Authority found that the Agency failed to cites any explicit or well-defined policy to support its assertion.
Lastly, the Authority rejected the allegations that the award failed to draw its essence from the parties' agreement, that it was based on a nonfact, and that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority.