28:0407(63)AR - AFGE VS JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE



[ v28 p407 ]
28:0407(63)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


28 FLRA NO. 63



U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE

              Agency

         and

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL
OF U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE LOCAL AFGE

              Union

Case No. 0-AR-1350

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before us on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator J. W. Dees 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. The Agency filed an opposition. 1

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

In June 1985, the Agency and the grievant entered into an agreement which settled an earlier grievance against the Agency. The grievant agreed to give up his full-time permanent position of Deputy U.S. Marshal and the Agency agreed to appoint him to the position of Intermittent Deputy U.S. Marshal. The agreement provided that the grievant would be employed for a minimum of 39 hours per week and that his appointment would be for a period of no less than 2 years except for reasonable cause. The agreement also provided that the grievant "hereby waives and forever relinquishes any reemployment or reinstatement rights to a full-time permanent competitive service position." Attachment to award. In 1986, the Agency laid off the grievant due to Gramm - Rudman Act budget reductions.

The issue submitted to arbitration was whether the Agency had reasonable cause to lay off the grievant. The Arbitrator found that inasmuch as additional funds had been allotted to the Agency, the grievant should be reimbursed for the 187.5 hours of work which he lost and that he should be allowed to complete the 2-year appointment at 39 hours per week working time in accordance with the agreement.

III. Discussion

In its exceptions the Union contends that the award does not draw its essence from the agreement and is contrary to law and regulation. The Union maintains that the Arbitrator did not allow sufficient evidence to be introduced at the hearing to prove the meaning and intent of "reasonable cause" in the settlement agreement and that he incorrectly considered whether the Gramm - Rudman Act budget cuts constituted "reasonable cause." The Union contends that the grievant should not be terminated at the conclusion of his appointment as the Arbitrator's award would permit. In its opposition, the Agency maintains that there are no grounds for rescinding the settlement agreement or reinstating the grievant to a permanent position as t