32:1228(163)AR - - Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Agriculture, Kansas City Operations Office and NFFE Local 858 - - 1988 FLRAdec AR - - v32 p1228



[ v32 p1228 ]
32:1228(163)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


32 FLRA No. 163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

KANSAS CITY OPERATIONS OFFICE

Activity

and 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 858

Union

Case No. O-AR-1564

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Clifford E. Smith. A grievance was filed claiming that the grievant's performance appraisal was in error and that the grievant should have received a career-ladder promotion from GS-6 to GS-7. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance as to the performance appraisal issue and denied the grievance as to the promotion issue.

The Union filed an exception 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 Union contends that the denial of the grievance on the promotion issue violates the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Agency filed an opposition.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient because it violates the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievance claimed that the grievant's performance evaluation was in error and that the grievant should have received a career-ladder promotion from GS-6 to GS-7. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator stated the issues to be whether the parties' collective bargaining agreement was violated in appraising the grievant or in deciding not to promote the grievant.

On the performance appraisal issue, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant had not been evaluated as required by the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator sustained this portion of the grievance and ordered that the grievant's performance be reevaluated.

On the promotion issue, the Arbitrator found no evidence that the decision not to promote the grievant violated the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied this portion of the grievance.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union contends that by denying the grievance on the promotion issue, the award violates the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Union asserts that evidence was presented to the Arbitrator showing that the grievant had performed the duties of her position at the full performance level with no recorded errors and that consequently, the grievant was entitled to have been promoted under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Union maintains that the Arbitrator erred in ruling that the decision not to promote the grievant did not violate the parties' agreement.

The Agency contends that the Arbitrator properly ruled that the decision not to promote the grievant did not violate the agreement and that the award is not deficient.

IV. Discussion

We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. The Union has failed to establish that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation or that the award is deficie