34:0311(59)AR - NAVY, LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA and FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL -- 1990 FLRAdec AR



[ v34 p311 ]
34:0311(59)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 34 FLRA NO. 59
 

                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD
                    LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

                              and

            FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL

                           0-AR-1624

			   DECISION

     			January 17, 1990

     Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Robert M. Leventhal. A grievance was filed
over cancellation by the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (the Activity)
of the grievant's scheduled assignment to work a sea trial. The
grievance sought payment for all the overtime pay the grievant
would have received had he worked the sea trial. The Arbitrator
found that the Activity violated the collective bargaining
agreement and directed that the Activity pay the grievant 19 1/2
hours of overtime pay.

     The Department of the Navy (the Agency) filed exceptions
under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor - Management
Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations on behalf of the Activity. The Federal
Employees Metal Trades Council (the Union) did not file an
opposition to the exceptions.

     We conclude that the award of overtime pay is contrary to
the Back Pay Act. Accordingly, we will strike that portion of the
award.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant was scheduled to work a sea trial which began
on September 29, 1987. When the grievant reported to the
ship for the sea trial assignment on September 29, 1987, he was
told that he was no  longer scheduled for this assignment and was
directed to leave. He then reported to his normal work location
and worked an 8-hour shift. The sea trial was conducted without
the grievant.

     A grievance was filed over the Activity's failure to notify
the grievant that his scheduled assignment to the sea trial had
been canceled. The grievance sought payment for all the overtime
pay the grievant would have received if he had worked the sea
trial. The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the
stipulated issues of (1) whether management violated the
collective bargaining agreement by canceling the grievant's
assignment for the sea trial, and (2) if so, what is the
appropriate remedy.

     The Arbitrator found that the Activity violated the
collective bargaining agreement by canceling the grievant's work
assignment. The Arbitrator ruled that management was responsible
for properly notifying the grievant about any changes in his work
sched