25:0629(51)AR - DOD Dependents Schools, Panama Region and the Panama Canal Federation of Teachers, Local 29 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR



[ v25 p629 ]
25:0629(51)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 51
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS
 SCHOOLS, PANAMA REGION
 Agency
 
 and
 
 THE PANAMA CANAL FEDERATION
 OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 29
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1215
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator James J. Sherman filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
                  II.  BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
 
    The dispute before the Arbitrator concerned the grievant's contention
 that she was not paid the proper rate for her part-time teaching
 position.  The grievant contended that her duties, which consisted of
 three classes plus a lunch period and required time before and after
 classes, were at least two-thirds those of a full-time teacher, yet she
 was paid only a half-time salary.  The Arbitrator stated the issue to be
 whether the Agency violated the collective bargaining agreement by
 paying one-half instead of two-thirds of the normal salary for the
 approximately five months the grievant was employed.
 
    The Arbitrator found that salaries for teachers were set by an Agency
 wage board but that the board had not addressed the matter of salaries
 for employees who worked less than full-time and more than half-time.
 He agreed with the Agency that he had no authority to establish a salary
 rate in the absence of wage board guidelines.  On the other hand, he
 found that the school principal failed to fully inform the grievant at
 the beginning of her employment exactly what her salary would be and
 that the principal failed to comply with a contractual obligation to
 conduct an orientation session to inform the grievant of the terms of
 her employment.  He concluded that if an orientation session had been
 held and the grievant had been informed that she would receive only
 one-half the full rate of pay she would have had the option of either
 accepting that rate or refusing the position.  He ruled that the
 grievant was not entitled to compensation at the rate of two-thirds of
 the full-time rate but that she had a resonable expectation that she
 would receive 60 percent.  The Arbitrator emphasized that he was not
 setting a new salary rate of 60 percent for all part-time assignments
 such as the grievant's.  As his award, the Arbitrator ordered the Agency
 to pay the grievant the difference between a 60 percent salary and what
 she actually received.  He also ordered the Agency