28:0362(57)AR - AFGE, LOCAL 2142 VS ARMY, ARMY DEPOT, CORPUS CHRIS
[ v28 p362 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA NO. 57 CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2142 Union Case No. 0-AR-1371
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross 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
A grievance was filed on behalf of two employees alleging violations in connection with the filling of several equipment repairer positions. After the grievance was filed, management agreed to revise the crediting plan and rerated all the candidates who had originally been ranked as qualified. The new ratings resulted in Grievant Hall being rated highly qualified and the rating of Grievant Thorne being lowered. Management granted Grievant Hall priority consideration for the next vacancy and denied relief to Grievant Thorne. This action did not resolve the grievance which was submitted to arbitration with the Union demanding that both grievants be granted promotions to the repairer position.
The Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that prohibited personnel practices had been committed under 5 U.S.C. 2302. He did find that the revised crediting plan contained an invalid measuring device, and he consequently directed management to reconvene a panel to develop a valid crediting plan to rate and rank Grievant Thorne with the successful candidates. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the appropriate remedy was promotions for both grievants. He concluded that management had provided the appropriate relief to Grievant Hall. Similarly, he directed that if Grievant Thorne's rerated average score is at least 2.5, Grievant Thorne is likewise to be offered priority consideration for the next appropriate vacancy.
In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is contrary to law and regulation. The Union argues that contrary to the findings of the Arbitrator, merit system principles were violated, prohibited personnel practices were committed, and the grievants were entitled to be promoted.
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 law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those