24:0516(58)AR - Air Force Space Division, Los Angeles AFS, CA and AFGE Local 2429 -- 1986 FLRAdec AR



[ v24 p516 ]
24:0516(58)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 24 FLRA No. 58
 
 AIR FORCE SPACE DIVISION, 
 LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE STATION, 
 CALIFORNIA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1027
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
 Arbitrator E. Lad Sabo 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.
 
                  II.  BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
 
    The grievance alleged that the Activity violated the merit promotion
 provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement and the local
 negotiated merit promotion plan when particular vacancy was filled
 through the Air Force-wide Comptroller Civilian Career Management
 Program (CCCMP) rather than through local promotion procedures.  The
 parties agreed that the Arbitrator would frame the issue and each party
 submitted its version of the issue for consideration.
 
    The Activity's version was as follows:
 
          Whether Grievant, an Employee represented by AFGE, Local 2429,
       was properly considered for the position of GS-560-12, Budget
       Analyst in ACBI, a position designated a headquarters Air Force
       career program position, under Merit Promotion Cert.
       OCPO-C-84-239?  If not, what should the remedy be?
 
    The Union's version of the issue was:
 
          1.  Whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the
       negotiated Space Division Merit Promotion Plan, dated 5 January
       1983, contain any provisions for excluding bargaining unit
       positions which management has identifed for the Comptroller
       Civilian Career Management Program (CCCMP) or any other career
       program?
 
          2.  Whether Management violated the Collective Bargaining
       Agreement and the negotiated space Division Merit Promotion Plan,
       dated 5 January 1983, in the filling of the GS-560-13 Budget
       Analyst position, which is a bargaining unit position.
 
    After considering these statements, the Arbitrator framed the issue
 based on the nature of the grievance as follows:
 
          Did the Employer violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement
       and the Space Division Merit Promotion Plan in the filling of a
       Bargaining Unit Position, Budget Analyst, GS-560-13, SD/ACBI, Los
       Angeles AF Station, CA PEP #560-13-N-BGT-A?
 
    In elaborating on the nature of the grievance and the issue to be
 decided, the Arbitrator expressly noted the responses of the Activity in
 denying the grievance at the initial steps of the grievance procedure.
 In particular, he quoted a portion of the Activity's step 1 answer which
 essentially maintained that GS-560-13 budget analyst positions are CCCMP
 positions which are governed by agency regulation and that therefore
 such positions are excluded from coverage under the local merit
 promotion procedures.  The Arbitrator further quoted the Activity's Step
 3 answer which similarly maintained that the Activity's local merit
 promotion procedures do not apply to CCCMP positions.
 
    After evaluating the evidence presented, the Arbitrator determined
 that management's position on the coverage of the merit promotion
 provisions of the parties' agreement was not supported.  Based on the
 requested finding of the Union, the Arbitrator consequently ruled that
 the Activity violated the terms of the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement and rendered the following award:
 
          The Employer violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement and
       the Space Division Merit Promotion Plan in the filling of a
       Bargaining Unit Position, Budget Analyst, GS-560-13, SD/ACBI, Los
       Angeles AF Station, CA PEP #560-13-N-BGT-A.
 
          Remedy:  The Employer is ordered to comply with the terms of
       the Labor Agreement on any and all fu