35:0417(54)AR - - Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Hill AFB, UT and AFGE Local 1592 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p417



[ v35 p417 ]
35:0417(54)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


35 FLRA No. 54

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1592

(Union)

0-AR-1774

DECISION

April 5, 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 Garth L. Mangum filed by the Union 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 Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exception.

The Arbitrator denied a grievance challenging the grievant's performance rating. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Arbitrator's award is deficient and that the matter should be remanded to the parties for resubmission to the Arbitrator.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievant received an overall performance rating of "fully successful" for the 1988 appraisal year. The previous year, the grievant received, from a different supervisor, an overall performance rating of "excellent." A grievance was filed protesting the "fully successful" rating and was submitted to arbitration on the following stipulated issue:

Did Management violate the Master Labor Agreement, law or Air Force regulations in the performance appraisal and rating of [the grievant]? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?

Award at 1. The Arbitrator stated that the "nub" of the issue was "whether [the grievant] should have been assessed at 7 or higher on the critical elements and whether 7 is meeting or exceeding the requirements of a fully successful rating." Id. at 3.

The Arbitrator first determined that there was "no procedural fault in the appraisal and rating process." Id. at 4. The Arbitrator then noted the requirements for an overall rating of "excellent" and found that, because the grievant had received a rating of 7 on all critical elements, the grievant should have been given an overall rating of excellent. However, the Arbitrator also stated that, because "this issue was never raised by the Union and no testimony was taken on it," he would hold the final decision open pending "written submissions from both parties[.]" Id. at 5.

Accordingly, in his award of June 19, 1989, the Arbitrator "tentatively sustained" the grievance. Id. The Arbitrator stated that he would issue a "final decision" based on the parties' written submissions. June 19, 1989, Letter Accompanying June 19 Award at 1. The Arbitrator also stated that, if the parties did not provide further information by July 10, 1989, the tentative decision would constitute a "positive sustaining of the grievance." Id.

On June 29, 1989, the Arbitrator issued a final decision denying the grievance. The Arbitrator stated that "the necessary information emerged from testimony in a companion case . . . in further hearing June 26, 1989." Addendum to the June 19, 1989 Decision at 2. Based on that information, the Arbitrator found that because he had "no sound means of judging the Grievant's performance, he [was] left to examine the procedures by which Management arrived at its rating." Id. The Arbitrator concluded that, "having found no procedural fault," the grievance was denied. Id.

III.Positions of the Parties

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator issued his final decision without giving the parties the opportunity to submit the additional information requested by the Arbitrator in his tentative decision. The Union