27:0038(9)AR - Ass't Secretary for Health, Public Health Service, and Local 41, AFGE -- 1987 FLRAdec AR



[ v27 p38 ]
27:0038(9)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 27 FLRA No. 9
 
 OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
 FOR HEALTH, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH 
 SERVICE
 Agency
 
 and
 
 LOCAL 41, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-1294
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator James P. Whyte filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
 part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
 
                  II.  Background and Arbitrator's Award
 
    The grievance alleged that in the course of abolishing the grievant's
 GS-15 position and assigning him to a GS-14 position, the Agency
 violated reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations;  denied him statutory
 retention rights;  and reneged on a promise to approve a request to
 detail him to a United Nations agency for two years.
 
    The Arbitrator rejected the allegations.  The Arbitrator essentially
 found that:  the RIF was justified;  the grievant was not singled out
 for discriminatory treatment;  the Agency properly applied RIF
 regulations in effect when the grievant's position was abolished;  the
 Union failed to establish that the grievant was deprived of any
 retention rights;  and the Agency did not act arbitrarily, capriciously
 or unreasonably in determining that the grievant was not qualified for
 certain GS-15 positions.  Finally, the Arbitrator found that the Union
 failed to establish that the Agency was required to detail the grievant
 to an international organization as a reasonable accomodation for an
 asserted handicapping condition caused by work-related stress.  The
 Arbitrator determined that a preference for work in an international
 organization does not require detail to that organization.
 Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
 
                             III.  Exceptions
 
    In its exceptions, the Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is
 inconsistent with various laws and regulations concerning accomodations
 for handicapping conditions, RIFs, details to international
 organizations and performance evaluation.
 
                               IV.  Decision
 
    We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the
 Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
 section 7122(a) of the Statute, that is, that the award is contrary to
 any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
 grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector