47:0254(18)AR - - AFGE, Local 1815 and Army Aviation Center, Fort Tucker, AL - - 1993 FLRAdec AR - - v47 p254



[ v47 p254 ]
47:0254(18)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


47 FLRA No. 18

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1815

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY AVIATION CENTER

FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA

(Agency)

0-AR-2361

_____

DECISION

March 31, 1993

_____

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 Linda S. Byars 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 alleging that the Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it failed to convert the grievant's temporary position to a permanent one. We conclude that the Union fails to establish that the award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

In 1989 the grievant was selected for a temporary Supply Clerk position through competitive procedures under a job opportunity announcement (JOA) which stated: "[i]f this position becomes permanent, no further competition will be required." Award at 7. In May 1991, the grievant's supervisors requested that the grievant's temporary position be converted to a permanent position. The Agency denied the request because there were employees listed on the Department of Defense "Stopper List."(1) In October 1991, as a result of a reduction-in-force (RIF), a displaced employee was assigned to the Supply Clerk position, and the grievant was returned to her previous position.

A grievance was filed over the Agency's failure to convert the grievant's temporary position to a permanent one. When the grievance was not resolved, it was submitted to arbitration on the following issue, as framed by the Arbitrator:

Was the Agen