35:0830(89)AR - - HHS, SSA, Birmingham, AL and AFGE Local 2206 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p830
[ v35 p830 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
35 FLRA No. 89
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
April 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 Jack E. Steen. A grievance was filed disputing the grievant's performance rating for a particular job task. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's performance rating did not violate the parties' collective bargaining agreement and denied the grievance.
The Union 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. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has not demonstrated that the award is deficient under section 7122(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
In the grievant's annual performance rating for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1988, the grievant received a performance rating of level 2 in Generic Job Task (GJT) No. 25. GJT No. 25 states: "Routes and distributes correspondence and mail." Attachment 2 to Union's Exceptions. In an interim appraisal by the grievant's previous supervisor for the period from October 1, 1987 through June 17, 1988, the grievant received a rating of level 3 for GJT No. 25.
A grievance was filed, and submitted to arbitration, claiming that by rating the grievant at level 2 instead of level 3 for GJT No. 25, the Agency violated provisions in the parties' collective bargaining agreement as well as provisions in the Agency's guidelines for the Generic Job Task Performance Appraisal System. The grievant requested that the evaluation of GJT No. 25 be changed from level 2 to level 3, that her overall evaluation be changed from "fully satisfactory" to "excellent," and that she be granted a cash award "and be made whole in all respects." Award at 1.
In the absence of the agreement of the parties on the issues to be resolved in arbitration, the Arbitrator stated the issues as follows:
1. Did Management abide by the provisions of the National Agreement in the evaluation process?
2. Did Management follow the guidelines of the [GJT] Performance Appraisal System in rating the grievant in [GJT] 25 for the period October 1, 1987, through September 30, 1988?
3. Did Management properly apply the [GJT] performance standards?
If Management failed in any of the above, what shall the remedy be?
The Arbitrator stated that "the Union did not convince [him] that any provisions of the contract were violated." Id. at 4. The Arbitrator also stated that the guidelines for the GJT Performance Appraisal System were followed by the Agency. With respect to the difference between the grievant's interim appraisal and her final appraisal, the Arbitrator found that the Agency "made a convincing argument that the grievant's performance deteriorated" during the latter part of the appraisal period. Id. The Arbitrator noted that an employee's conduct "can affect his/her work performance." Id. The Arbitrator also noted that the Agency's argument that it had "talked to the grievant about her performance, but to no avail[,]" would be "much stronger had it documented the talks." Id. The Arbitrator concluded, however, that the "Union presented no convincing evidence that the employee was rated unfairly." Id. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
III. The Parties' Positions
A. The Union's Exceptions
The Union asserts that the Arbitrator (1) failed to follow the parties' contractual procedure for expedited arbitration, and (2) misstated the issues. The Union contends further that the Arbitrator has "alter[ed] the appraisal process and thus exceed[ed] his authority." Id.
B. The Agency's Opposition
The Agency asserts that the Arbitrator's award does not violate law, rule, or regulation, and that the Union's exceptions do not demonstrate that the award is deficient.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
We conclude that the Union