18:0099(20)AR - Justice, INS, Western Regional Office, San Pedro, CA and AFGE, INS Council, Western Region, Local 2805 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR



[ v18 p99 ]
18:0099(20)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 18 FLRA No. 20
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 
 SERVICE, WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, 
 SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA 
 Activity
 
 and 
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, IMMIGRATION AND 
 NATURALIZATION SERVICE COUNCIL, 
 WESTERN REGION, LOCAL 2805 
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-615
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Carroll R. Daugherty filed by the Agency under section
 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and
 part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  /1/
 
    The grievance in this case concerns management's practice of not
 providing to criminal investigators training during duty time in customs
 and agricultural law.  Training in customs and agricultural law is
 required for employees in the position of immigration inspector but not
 criminal investigator.  However, such training is necessary in order for
 a criminal investigator to be eligible to volunteer for overtime
 assignments of the duties of immigration inspector.  A grievance was
 filed and submitted to arbitration primarily on the issue of whether
 management violated Article 15 of the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement /2/ when it refused to provide such training during duty time
 to the grievant, a criminal investigator, who consequently obtained the
 training partly during nonduty time and partly while on approved annual
 leave.  The Arbitrator first noted that employees in two other job
 classifications, immigration examiner and deportation officer, were
 provided training in customs and agricultural law during duty time.  The
 Arbitrator at the same time acknowledged that the job description of
 both the position of immigration examiner and deportation officer
 included as secondary duties the duties of the position of immigration
 inspector, while the position description of the position of criminal
 investigator made no reference to the duties of immigration inspector.
 In this regard the Arbitrator determined that management's decision not
 to assign immigration inspector duties to criminal investigators was not
 a reasonable basis on which to have denied the training request of the
 grievant.  In the Arbitrator's judgment this constituted discrimination
 against the grievant in relation to employees in the job classifications
 of immigration examiner and deportation officer and constituted a
 violation of Article 15 of the agreement in that the assignment of
 training had not been "equitable" as