23:0671(88)AR - Naval Ordnance Station and IAM Local Lodge 830 -- 1986 FLRAdec AR



[ v23 p671 ]
23:0671(88)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 88
 
 U.S. NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION
 Activity
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS 
 LOCAL LODGE 830
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1123
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator W. Thomas Mulhall 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
 
    A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration on the issue of
 whether the Activity violated the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement by its assignment of overtime.  The grievant was a general
 purpose welder and the overtime to which he claimed entitlement had been
 assigned to two electron beam welders because the overtime work was
 scheduled to be done on electron beam welding equipment.  Specifically,
 one of the electron beam welders was assigned to operate the equipment
 and the other was assigned to assist.  At arbitration the Activity
 explained that the grievant was not considered for the disputed overtime
 assignment because as a general purpose welder he was not qualified to
 perform the electron beam welding work.  The Union disputed the
 Activity's determination that the employee assigned to assist the
 primary welder must also be a qualified electron beam welder.  The Union
 maintained that the assistant performed duties for which the grievant
 was entirely qualified and argued that therefore the grievant was
 entitled to have been offered the disputed overtime assignment.
 
    The Arbitrator agreed with the Union.  He found that the record did
 not indicate that the duties of the assistant were of the same
 specialized nature required of the primary electron beam welder.  To the
 contrary he found that the work performed by the assistant was
 completely within the skills of the grievant and that the grievant was
 qualified to perform the work.  The Arbitrator ruled that under the
 parties' collective bargaining agreement provisions on the distribution
 of overtime, management was obligated to have offered the overtime work
 of assisting the operator of the electron beam welding equipment to the
 grievant.  The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant was wrongfully
 deprived of the assignment.  Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator
 sustained the grievance and awarded the grievant 8 hours of overtime
 pay.
 
                             III.  EXCEPTIONS
 
    As one of its exceptions, the Agency contends that the award is
 contrary to management's right to assign work in accordance with section
 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  Specifically, the Agency argues that the
 award substitutes the judgment of the Arbitrator for that of management
 in determining the qualifications necessary to perform certain work and
 in determining whether the grievant possessed those qualifications.
 
                       IV.  ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    We agree with the Agency.  In United States Marine Corps, Marine
 Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia and American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 2317, 23 FLRA No. 52 (1986), in which the
 arbitrator found, contrary to the determination of management, that the
 grievant had the skills necessary to perform the overtime work in
 dispute and ordered that the grievant be assigned such work, we
 concluded that the award was contrary to management's right to assign
 work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  More specifically, we
 found that the arbitrator had negated the exercise by management of the
 rights encompassed by section 7106(a)(2)(B) to establish qualifications
 and to determine whether particular employees meet those qualifications
 and, therefore, we set aside the award.
 
    In this case we similarly conclude for the reasons set forth in
 Marine Corps