29:1387(115)AR - AFGE, COUNCIL NO. 214 VS AIR FORCE, AFLC, AIR FORCE BASE, ROBINS
[ v29 p1387 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
29 FLRA NO. 115
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND ROBINS AFB, GEORGIA Activity and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFGE COUNCIL No. 214 Union Case No. 0-AR-1388
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Bernard H. Cantor filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. We deny the exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration concerning whether the grievant, a GS-3, had been performing the duties of a GS-4 position for an extended period of time and whether she was entitled under the parties' collective bargaining agreement to have been temporarily promoted beginning on July 31, 1985. The Arbitrator determined that the grievant had performed the duties of a higher-grade position for an extended period of time for which she was entitled under the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement to have been temporarily promoted beginning on the 31st day of the assignment. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator awarded her backpay in the amount of the difference between her GS-3 pay and what she would have been paid as a GS-4 for the period beginning on the 31st day of the assignment and ending on the day she was reassigned.
The Agency contends in its exceptions that the Arbitrator's finding that the grievant performed the duties of a GS-4 position is based on a nonfact. The Agency also contends that the Arbitrator's finding is contrary to the parties' stipulation that the grievant performed the same duties as employees who were paid at the GS-4 level. The Agency maintains that the duties performed by other employees who were paid at the GS-4 level were really properly classified at the GS-3 level. The Agency further contends that the award is contrary to the Statute because the Arbitrator made a classification determination which is precluded by section 7121(c)(5) of the Statute.
We conclude that the Agency 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: specifically, that the award is contrary to any law, rule or regulation or that it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for example, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service and N