23:0507(69)AR - AFGE Local 1631 and VA Medical Center, Chillicothe, OH -- 1986 FLRAdec AR



[ v23 p507 ]
23:0507(69)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 69
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1631
 Union
 
 and
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 
 MEDICAL CENTER,CHILLICOTHE, OHIO
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1172
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator Louis V. Immundo, Jr. filed by the Union 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
 
    A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration where the
 Arbitrator framed the issue as whether management violated the parties'
 collective bargaining agreement by not temporarily promoting the
 grievant, a clerk-stenographer, GS-3, to the position of
 secretary-stenographer, GS-5.  The Arbitrator found that the grievant
 performed some of the duties of the GS-5 position for a 10-month period
 and that she apparently performed those duties in a satisfactory manner.
  The Arbitrator concluded that by not detailing the grievant to the
 higher-graded position, management violated the spirit of Article 10 of
 the parties' collective bargaining agreement relating to equitable,
 nondiscriminatory treatment of employees.  However, the Arbitrator
 further found, based on a determination by the Office of Personnel
 Management, that the grievant was not eligible for promotion to GS-5
 under X-118 civil service qualification standards.  The Arbitrator
 therefore concluded that management did not violate Article 16 of the
 parties' agreement by not temporarily promoting the grievant to the GS-5
 position.  Finding that no remedy could be applied for a violation of
 the spirit of Article 10, the Arbitrator, as his award, denied the
 grievance.
 
                              III.  EXCEPTION
 
    In its exception the Union contends that the award is contrary to law
 and regulation.  Essentially, the Union argues that the award is
 deficient because the Arbitrator failed to award the grievant a
 retroactive temporary promotion and backpay for the period of time he
 found that she was assigned the duties of the GS-5 position.
 
                       IV.  ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    We conclude that the exception fails to establish that the award is
 contrary to law or regulation.  To the contrary, the award is strictly
 in accordance with civil service law and regulation.  The Authority has
 recognized that in order for an employee to be properly promoted
 consistent with civil service law and regulation,