40:0079(9)AR - - DOD, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, George AFB, CA and NFFE Local 977 - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v40 p79



[ v40 p79 ]
40:0079(9)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


40 FLRA No. 9

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE

GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

(Agency)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 977

(Union)

0-AR-1987

DECISION

April 9, 1991

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 Donald A. Anderson filed by the Agency 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 filed an opposition to the Agency's exceptions.

The Arbitrator determined that the Agency violated law, regulation, and the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it reduced the commission paid to automotive mechanics. The Arbitrator ordered the parties to meet in order to review the evidence on which the Agency based its determination to adjust commission rates. The Arbitrator ordered that if the adjusted commission rates were appropriate, they would remain in place, but that if the Agency could not justify the adjustment in commission rates, the parties were to establish the proper rates. Further, if it was determined that the mechanics were denied proper commission rates, they would be reimbursed for the difference. Finally, the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction for 60 days in order to assist in the resolution of questions concerning the appropriate commission rate.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Agency has not demonstrated that the award is deficient. Therefore, the Agency's exceptions will be denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievance in this case arose when the commission rates paid to automotive mechanics working for AAFES at George Air Force Base, California (the Activity), were reduced by 20 percent. The grievance alleged that the Activity's action was taken unilaterally and without the participation of the Union, as required by law and regulation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency "violated the parties['] collective bargaining agreement, and federal law" when it adjusted the commission rates "without the participation and involvement of the Union." Award at 5. In so concluding, the Arbitrator dismissed the Agency's argument that an agreement had been reached before the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC) which gave the Agency the right unilaterally to change the commission rates provided the change was within the range established by FPM Supplement 532-2. The Arbitrator concluded that the transcript of the FPRAC meeting "was not convincing that such an agreement was intended" or superseded the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 5343 and FPM Supplement 532-2 for union involvement in the determination of prevailing wage rates. Id.

The Arbitrator concluded that, in view of 5 U.S.C. § 5343 and of FPM Supplement 532-2, the Agency "violated the parties['] collective bargaining agreement, and federal law, when it unilaterally decided for commission wage adjustments for mechanics involved in this case without the participation and involvement of the Union." Id. The Arbitrator ordered the parties to "meet for the purpose of reviewing the evidence which prompted the Activity to adjust commission pay rates of mechanics." Id. at 6. The Arbitrator stated that, if the Agency's commission wage rate was "found to have to been appropriate for the geographical area in question, the Activity's wage adjustment shall stand." Id. The Arbitrator ordered that, if the Agency could not "justify" the adjustment of the mechanics' commission rate, the parties were "to establish the proper adjustments" and the mechanics were to "be reimbursed for the difference" between what they earned and what they would have earned pursuant to a proper adjustment of their commission rates. Id.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. The Agency's Exceptions

The Agency contends that the Arbitrator's award is deficient because it is contrary to law and regulation. Specifically, the Agency argues that the award is contrary to FPM Supplement 532-2, Appendix V. The agency asserts that the award requires it to "renegotiate an agreement reached with the Union in proceedings before" the FPRAC on June 19, 1984. Exceptions at 3.

The Agency also asserts that the Arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction results in a denial of its right under section 7122(b) of the Statute and section 2425.1(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations to file exceptions to the award. According to the Agency, "the substantive issue" of whether the commission rates it established for mechanics is appropriate will "become[] final and binding" before the Arbitrator rules on the remedy. Id. at 4.

B. The Union's Opposition

The Union asserts that there was no "agreement" that the Agency had unilateral authority to establish commission rates. Opposition at 1. Moreover, the Union asserts that any such agreement would be illegal and unenforceable.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

A. FPM Supplement 532-2

We reject the Agency's argument that it was privileged unilaterally to change the commission rates for automobile mechanics.

The automotive mechanics are nonappropriated fund employees who are subject to the provisions of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-932, 86 Stat. 564 (1972) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 5341-5349 (1988) (the Act). Under the Act, the automotive mechanics are subject to the prevailing rate wage system, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5343, whereby pay is to be fixed and adjusted from time to time