20:0792(94)AR - Army Missile Command, Army Communications Command Agency--Redstone, Army Commissary, Redstone Arsenal, AL and AFGE Local 1858 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR



[ v20 p792 ]
20:0792(94)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 20 FLRA No. 94
 
 U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND,
 U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND AGENCY--
 REDSTONE, U.S. ARMY COMMISSARY,
 REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1858, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-998
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator George Munchus III 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.
 
    A grievance was filed on behalf of one of a number of candidates for
 a GS-5 vacancy in a program assistant position claiming that the
 selected employee was given an advantage over other competing employees
 as the result of extended details.  Although the grievant was granted by
 the Activity priority consideration for the next appropriate vacancy,
 the grievance was submitted to arbitration when the immediate promotion
 of grievant was not granted by the Activity.  Thy Arbitrator would that
 the selection "appear(ed) to conflict with merit principles" and
 therefore violated agency regulation providing that practices must be
 avoided with would indicate preselection or promotion based on
 favoritism.  Although the Arbitrator refused to decide whether the
 selection erroneous and refused to vacate the position, he ordered that
 the grievant shall be immediately promoted to the next GS-5 vacancy in a
 program assistant position for which she was qualified.
 
    In its exception, the Agency principally contends that the award is
 contrary to management's right to make selections for appointments as
 set forth in section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the Statute and FPM chapter 335.
 The Authority agrees.
 
    The Authority consistently has held in this respect that management's
 right to make the actual selections for promotion can only be abridged
 if the Arbitrator finds a direct connection between improper agency
 action and the failure of a specific employee to be selected for
 promotion.  E.g., Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of
 Transportation and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 3313, AFL-CIO, 17 FLRA No. 14 (1985);  American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 12 and United States Department of Labor, 15 FLRA No.
 113 (1984).  In terms of this case, the Authority concludes that the
 Arbitrator failed to make the necessary finding.  Although the
 Arbitrator found tha