35:0237(27)AR - - HHS, SSA and AFGE Local 1923 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p237
[ v35 p237 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
35 FLRA No. 27
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
March 27, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Peter A. Veglahn. A grievance was filed disputing the grievant's performance rating of level 3 for a particular job task. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance and, as a remedy, directed that the grievant's level 4 rating from the previous appraisal period be carried forward.
The Agency 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 did not file an opposition to the exception.
We conclude that because the Arbitrator did not determine what the grievant's rating would have been if he had been properly rated, the award requiring that the grievant's rating be changed is contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. We will modify the award to direct that management reevaluate the grievant.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
In the grievant's annual performance appraisal, the grievant received a performance rating of level 3 in Generic Job Task (GJT) No. 68. GJT No. 68 states: "Prepares memoranda[,] reports, and other written products." Arbitrator's Award at 1. A grievance was filed disputing the rating and was submitted to arbitration under the expedited arbitration procedures of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
The Arbitrator sustained the grievance, finding that the grievant had not been given timely periodic performance reviews as required by Article 21, Section 7B of the parties' agreement. As the remedy, the Arbitrator directed that: (1) the grievant's level 4 rating for GJT No. 68 from the previous appraisal period be carried forward; (2) the grievant's overall evaluation be raised to outstanding; and (3) the grievant be made whole for any loss resulting from an overall rating of excellent rather than outstanding.
The Agency contends that the award is contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. The Agency states that under the Authority's decision in Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 30 FLRA 1156 (1988) (Social Security Administration), when an arbitrator is able to determine based on the record what the performance rating would have been had management not violated the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator may order management to grant that rating. If the arbitrator is unable to determine what the grievant's rating would have been, the arbitrator must remand the case to management for reevaluation. The Agency argues that at no point did the Arbitrator indicate that, based on the evidence before him, he could ascertain what the rating would have been if management had not violated the agreement. The Agency contends that by directing that the previous year's appraisal rating be carried over, the award is contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B). The Agency states that the proper remedy would have been to have management reevaluate the grievant.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
In Social Security Administration, the Authority reexamined the remedial authority of arbitrators in performance appraisal matters. The Authority defined the approach that arbitrators must use when examining an agency's application of a performance standard to an employee. The Authority held that:
when an arbitrator finds that management has not applied the established elements and standards or that management has applied the established elements and standards in violation of law, regulation, or a properly negotiated provision of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator may cancel the performance appraisal or rating. When the arbitrator is able to determine on the basis of the record presented what the rating of the grievant's work product or performance would have been under the established elements and standards, if they had been applied, or if the violation of law, regulation, or the collective bargaining agreement had not occurred, the arbitrator may direct management to grant the grievant that rating. If the record does not enable the Arbitrator to determine what the grievant's rating would have been, the arbitrator should direct that the grievant's work product or performance be reevaluated by management as appropriate.