21:0307(39)AR - Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia. And Tidewater Virginia FEMTC -- 1986 FLRAdec AR
[ v21 p307 ]
21:0307(39)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
21 FLRA No. 39
NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
Activity
and
TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1056
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator Robert J. Ables filed by the Department of the Navy (the
Agency) under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations.
II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
The grievance alleged that the Activity denied the grievant the
opportunity to work overtime on an asbestos rip-out project because she
was absent on sick leave on the day the overtime assignments were made.
The grievance also alleged that during later changes in the overtime
assignments made after the grievant had returned to work a less
qualified employee was chosen instead of the grievant. The Arbitrator
found that the Activity violated pertinent provisions of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement when it failed to select the grievant
for the overtime assignment and ruled that "the grievant should have
been assigned or, at least, been requested to perform overtime work on
the second shift." He sustained the grievance and as a remedy ordered
the Activity to pay the grievant as though she had worked 12 hours of
overtime.
III. EXCEPTION
As its exception, the Agency contends that the award is contrary to
the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5596, because the Arbitrator failed
to find that the grievant would have worked 12 hours of overtime but for
the violation of the agreement.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
In order for an award of backpay to be authorized by the Back Pay
Act, the arbitrator must determine that the aggrieved employee was
affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action, that the
personnel action directly resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of the
grievant's pay, allowances or differentials, and that but for such
action, the grievant otherwise would not have suffered the withdrawal or
reduction. U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground and Local 2424,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
19 FLRA No. 35 (1985). In this case, the Arbitrator determined that the
Activity violated the parties' agreement by denying the grievant
overtime. However, he did not find specifically that but for the
Activity's violation of the parties' agreement, the grievant would have
performed the overtime work and received overtime pay. That is, the
Arbitrator's finding that the grievant should have been assigned or
should have been requested to perform the overtime does not constitute
the requisite finding that she would have performed the work.
Consequently, the award of retroactive overtime pay to the grievant is
contrary to the Back Pay Act. See Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery,
St. Louis, Missouri and National Association of Government Employees,
Local R14-116, 13 FLRA 703 (1984).
V. DECISION
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Arbitrator's award is set
aside.
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY