46:0555(53)AR - - Army Communications- Electronics Command, Center for Command, Control and Communications Systems, Fort Monmouth, NJ and NFFE Local 476 - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v46 p555



[ v46 p555 ]
46:0555(53)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


46 FLRA No. 53

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS COMMAND

CENTER FOR COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY

(Agency)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 476

(Union)

0-AR-2303

DECISION

November 19, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Ruth Russell Gray 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 found that a disputed selection action was in accordance with merit promotion regulations, and she denied the grievance.

We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

In 1990, a job notice was posted announcing a number of engineering positions open for recruitment. The grievant applied for the announced positions. During the selection process, the grievant complained to the Agency that certain technical questions asked during the interview process improperly favored one of the other applicants. As a result of the grievant's complaint, the questions were eliminated as part of the selection process. When the allegedly favored applicant was among the employees selected and the grievant was not, the grievant filed a grievance challenging the selection process. Thereafter, in another selection action, the grievant was selected for promotion. Nevertheless, the grievance was pursued, seeking as general relief the rerun of the disputed selection action. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator stated the issues as follows:

Is the within matter arbitrable under the Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Was the selection process . . . made in accordance with merit promotion regulations? If not, what should be the remedy?

Award at 1. The Arbitrator ruled that the grievance was arbitrable even though the grievant no longer sought personal relief.

On the merits, the Arbitrator ruled that "[t]he selection process . . . was made in accordance with merit promotion regulations." Id. at 14. She found that the Union failed to prove that the selected employee was improperly rated and ranked. In her view, "the rating and ranking process was handled competently and correctly." Id. at 11. The Arbitrator also rejected assertions that management showed favoritism towards the selected employee by ignoring complaints against him by coworkers. The Arbitrator found that the complaints were in