19:0167(16)AR - VA Medical Center, Lyons, NJ and AFGE Local No. 1012 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR

[ v19 p167 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 19 FLRA No. 16
                                            Case No. O-AR-832
    This matter is before the Authority on exception to the award of
 Arbitrator Lawrence I. Hammer filed by the Agency under section 7122(a)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute and part 2425 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations.
    The dispute before the Arbitrator concerned the detail of the
 grievant, a Dental Assistant, GS-4, to the position of a Supervisor
 Dental Assistant, GS-6, for the period of April 2 through April 30,
 1984.  The Activity refused to promote the grievant temporarily to GS-6
 because the Activity determined that the grievant did not meet the
 minimum qualification requirements of Civil Service Handbook X-118
 (Qualification Standards) for the position of Dental Assistant, GS-6, in
 that she did not have one year of qualifying experience at Dental
 Assistant, GS-5, or its equivalent.  A grievance was filed claiming an
 entitlement to a temporary promotion.  The Activity responded to the
 grievance by granting the grievant for the period in dispute a
 retroactive temporary promotion with backpay to the position of Dental
 Assistant, GS-5, for which the grievant was qualified.  The grievance
 however remained unresolved as to the entitlement to a promotion to GS-6
 and was submitted to arbitration.  The Arbitrator as his award ruled
 that the grievant was entitled to have been temporarily promoted for the
 period of the detail to Supervisory Dental Assistant, GS-6, and that the
 Activity had violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by
 failing to have done so.  Thus, the Arbitrator essentially directed that
 the grievant be retroactively promoted for the period of the detail to
 GS-6 with backpay.  With respect to the amount of backpay, the
 Arbitrator directed that it be the amount awarded by the Activity which
 because of the step placement in grade 5 was an amount greater than the
 amount for GS-6, step 1.
    As one of its exceptions, the Agency contends that the award is
 deficient as contrary to civil service law and regulation because the
 grievant was not qualified for promotion to GS-6.  The Authority agrees.
    The Authority has uniformly recognized that in order for an employee
 to be properly promoted consistent with civil service law and
 regulation, whether temporarily or permanently, the employee must meet
 at the time of the promotion the minimum qualification requirements for
 the position to which