19:0389(52)AR - New Cumberland Army Depot and AFGE Local 2004 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR



[ v19 p389 ]
19:0389(52)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 19 FLRA No. 52
 
 NEW CUMBERLAND ARMY DEPOT
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2004
 Union
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-893
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Francis X. Quinn filed by the Activity under section 7122(a)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425
 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
    According to the Arbitrator, the grievant, a GS-3 payroll clerk, was
 suspended for 14 days and reassigned to a position of equal grade, and
 as a result she filed a grievance that was submitted to arbitration.
 After the grievance was filed but before the arbitration hearing, the
 grievant's suspension was cancelled.  Before the Arbitrator, who stated
 the issue as whether the grievant's suspension was for just cause, the
 grievant argued that her reassignment was also punishment because she
 was reassigned from a position which had promotion potential to GS-5 to
 a position which had no known promotion potential.  The Arbitrator
 agreed, finding that after the cancellation of her suspension, the
 Activity continued to punish her and that she was not treated fairly.
 Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator rescinded the reassignment and
 ordered her promoted to the grades she would have attained if she had
 not been reassigned.
 
    In one of its exceptions, the Activity contends that by rescinding
 the reassignment, the award is deficient as an interference with
 management's right to assign employees.  The Authority agrees.
 
    In Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
 Administration, Charlotte, North Carolina District and American
 Federation of Government Employees, Local 3509, AFL-CIO, 17 FLRA No. 21
 (1985), the agency filed exceptions to an arbitration award which
 rescinded a reassignment of an employee as not in accordance with the
 collective bargaining agreement, and the agency contended that the award
 was contrary to management's right to assign employees under section
 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.  In particular, the agency argued that the
 award interfered with its right to assign employees and that the award
 had no basis in the parties' agreement because the agreement contained
 no prohibition against the disputed reassignment.  In finding the award
 deficient, the Authority ruled that it was clear that the award
 interfered with management's right to assign employees by rescinding the
 assignment of the grievant, and the Authority further ruled that the
 arbitrator had not enforced a negotiated provision of the parties'
 agreement providing an appropriate arrangement for employees adversely
 affected by management's exercise of the authority under section
 7106(a)(2)(A) to assign employees.  Thus, the Authority held that the
 prohibition against the reassignment was solely the creation of the
 arbitrator.  Accordingly, the Authority decided that the award, which
 interfered with management's right to assign employees in the agency and
 which did not constitute the enforcement of an applicable negotiated
 appropriate arrangement, was deficient as contrary to section
 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.
 
    In terms of this case, the Authority concludes that the award is
 likewise deficient.  By rescinding the grievant's reassignment, the
 award clearly interferes with the Activity's exercise of its right under
 section 7106(a)(2)(A) to assign employees in the agency.  Social
 Security Administration, Charlotte at 2.  Additionally, the Arbitrator
 did not enforce a negotiated provision of the parties' agreement
 providing an appropriate arrangement for employees adversely affected by
 the Activity's exercise of its authority under section 7106(a)(2)(A) to
 assign employees.  Although the Arbitrator expressly ruled that the
 grievant "was not treated fairly," the Arbitrator cited no provisions of
 the parties' collective bargaining agreement.  Thus, the rescinding of
 the