35:1244(142)AR - - DOD, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, Kelly AFB, TX and AFGE Local 1617 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p1244



[ v35 p1244 ]
35:1244(142)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


35 FLRA No. 142

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER

KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1617

(Union)

0-AR-1795

_____

DECISION

May 31, 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 Otis H. King. A grievance was filed disputing the grievant's performance ratings on three job factors. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance and directed the Agency to raise the grievant's ratings on the three factors and, as a result of those raised ratings, to raise the grievant's overall rating.

The Agency filed exceptions to the award under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) and part 225 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union did not file an opposition to the Agency's exceptions.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the award is inconsistent with management's rights to direct employees and assign work under section 7106(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Statute and, therefore, is deficient under section 7122(a). Accordingly, we will set aside the award.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A grievance was filed disputing the grievant's performance ratings on appraisal factors 1, 4, and 9.(*) The grievant received ratings of 4 ("slightly below fully successful"), 6 ("slightly above fully successful"), and 5 ("fully successful"), respectively, on the three factors. Award at 1. The grievant's overall performance was rated as "slightly above fully successful." Id. The grievant requested that his ratings for each of the three appraisal factors be raised to 9 ("outstanding"). Id. The grievance was submitted to arbitration on the following issue:

Was the Grievant . . . appraised properly on appraisal factors 1, 4, and 9 on his 1988-89 annual performance rating? If not, what shall be the remedy?

Id.

The Arbitrator found that during the relevant appraisal period, the grievant had (1) worked as an alternate supervisor for 5 months, (2) received a certificate of appreciation for making a suggestion that had been adopted by the Agency, (3) been selected as "Employee of the Quarter" by his fellow employees. Id. at 2. The Arbitrator also found that the grievant had received overall performance ratings of "fully satisfactory" for the 1984-85 and 1985-86 appraisal years, and an overall rating of "slightly above fully satisfactory" for the 1987-88 appraisal year. Id. The Arbitrator noted that, at the arbitration hearing, the Agency offered no evidence other than the grievant's previous performance ratings.

The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant had established that the ratings he received in all three disputed factors were too low. In particular, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's work as an alternate supervisor demonstrated his abilities in a "major component" of factor 9. Id. In addition, the Arbitrator found that, "in the absence of any contradictory evidence, it must be accepted that the Grievant's production was no lower than anyone else in the unit," and, therefore, the grievant's rating for factor 4 was incorrect. Id. Finally, the Arbitrator stated that, in view of the grievant's selection as "employee of the quarter," and his receipt of a certificate of appreciation for a suggestion, he was not properly evaluated on factor 1.

As his award, the Arbitrator provided the following:

[I]t is clear that the Grievant has met his burden of proof that his appraisal ratings were too low in the challenged categories. It is therefore ordered that the Grievant's performance ratings be raised to 63, "Above Fully Satisfactory." His score of 54 is to be increased by nine (9) points by raising elements 1, 4, and 9 by three (3) points each.

Id. at 3.

III. The Agency's Exceptions

The Agency contends that the award is contrary to its rights under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute to direct employees and assign work. 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 I), an arbitrator may direct an agency to grant a grievant a particular performance rating only when the arbitrator is able to determine, based on the record, what a grievant's performance rating would have been if management had not violated law, regulation, or the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Agency asserts that the Arbitrator found no violations of law, regulation, or the collective bargaining agreement and that, even assuming that there had been such a violation, the