34:0044(11)AR - - DOD, Defense Mapping Agency, Hydrographic/Topographic Center and AFGE Local 3407 - - 1989 FLRAdec AR - - v34 p44
[ v34 p44 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
34 FLRA No. 11
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY
HYDROGRAPHIC TOPOGRAPHIC CENTER
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS
December 27, 1989
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3407 (the Union) filed exceptions to a decision of a Defense Mapping Agency (the Agency) performance rating appeal panel. The panel denied the employee's appeal for higher performance ratings. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions. Because the Authority lacks jurisdiction to review the Union's exceptions, the exceptions are dismissed.
The function of the Performance Rating Appeal Panel (the Panel) is to hear and decide employees' appeals of performance ratings. The parties' negotiated grievance procedure states that performance ratings are only appealable to the Panel and that its decisions are final. Performance rating appeals may not be taken to arbitration.
The employee who appealed her rating is a physical scientist with the Agency. The employee appealed her performance rating to the Panel, seeking a higher rating. The Panel determined not to change the performance rating.
III. Position of the Parties
The Union filed exceptions to "the final Performance Rating Appeal . . ." of the employee. Union's Exceptions at 1. The Union's primary contention is that the employee should have been awarded a higher performance rating. Id. However, the Union concedes that performance rating disputes cannot be taken to arbitration. Id.
The Agency argues that the Authority lacks jurisdiction to make a decision on the Union's exceptions. Agency's Opposition. The Agency asserts that the Union is attempting to treat an in-house administrative decision as an arbitration award. Id. The Agency also argues that neither law (5 U.S.C. º 7122) nor regulation (5 C.F.R. part 2425) provides for review by the Authority of any decisions other than arbitration awards. Id. Finally, the Agency notes that the parties' negotiated grievance procedure specifically excludes arbitration of performance ratings appeals. Id.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
We conclude that the Panel's decision on the employee's performance rating was not reached through binding arbitration under section 7121 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the