19:0725(87)AR - AFGE Local 547 and Tampa VA Hospital -- 1985 FLRAdec AR

[ v19 p725 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 19 FLRA No. 87
                                            Case No. O-AR-916
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Lawrence Kanzer 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.  The Union filed an opposition.
    The grievance in this case concerned the grievant's failure to
 receive a cash award for superior performance.  According to the
 Arbitrator, the grievant in 1984 received an overall performance
 appraisal rating of "outstanding," the highest rating.  On the basis of
 this rating, the grievant was recommended for and received a performance
 award certificate.  He was not recommended for and did not receive a
 cash award and as a result filed a grievance that was ultimately
 submitted to arbitration.  The Arbitrator framed the issue as follows:
          Did the (Activity) violate Article 32, Section 6 of the Master
       Agreement by failing to automatically consider the grievant for a
       monetary award under the provisions of the incentive awards
       program intended for employees rated by their supervisors as
       outstanding or superior?
 In this respect the Arbitrator specifically noted the issue as framed by
 the parties.  The Union framed the issue as whether management
 considered the grievant for a monetary award fairly and equitably and
 whether management changed procedures on performance awards without the
 knowledge of the Union or the grievant.  The Activity framed the issue
 as whether the grievant was considered for a monetary award in
 accordance with Article 32, Section 6B of the agreement.  Quoting
 Article 32, Section 6C of the parties' master agreement providing that
 "(a)wards for performance will be distributed in a fair and equitable
 manner," the Arbitrator ruled that the Activity's "decision not to give
 Grievant a monetary award was both unfair and inequitable." Accordingly,
 as his award, the Arbitrator directed that the Activity issue the
 necessary form awarding the grievant a monetary award not to exceed 3%
 of his salary, that the Hospital Director review such award and enter
 his concurrence or modification of the award as to amount only, and that
 the grievant be paid the amount of such award.
    As one of its exceptions, the Agency contends that the award does not
 draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.  In support
 of this exception, the Agency notes that Article 13, Secti