48:0403(37)AR - - AF, HQ, 92nd Bomb Wing, Fairchild AFB, WA and NFFE, Local 11 /// Dept. of the Air Force - - 1993 FLRAdec AR - - v48 p403



[ v48 p403 ]
48:0403(37)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


48 FLRA No. 37

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 92ND BOMB WING

FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON

(Agency)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 11

(Union)

0-AR-2418

_____

ORDER DISMISSING EXCEPTIONS

August 30, 1993

_____

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Robert L. Burke 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. On August 6, l993, the Authority directed the Union to Show Cause why its exceptions should not be dismissed as interlocutory. The Union filed a timely response. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's exceptions. For the reasons stated below, the Union's exceptions are interlocutory and must be dismissed.

The Arbitrator framed two issues that were before him for resolution:

ISSUE NO. 1

Did [the Agency], in the persons of the appropriate supervisor-raters, properly apply performance standards listed in AF Form 860 in rating the [g]rievant for his performance during the period ending June 30, 1992, resulting in an overall rating of "excellent"?

If not, what is the remedy?

Award at 4.

ISSUE NO. 2

Did the performance plan, [and the administration therof] established by management for the position in which the [g]rievant was employed, meet all statutory and other legal requirements of applicable laws, rules and regulations?

If not, what is the remedy?

Id.

The Arbitrator rendered a determination with regard to Issue No. 1, finding that both parties had adequate opportunities to present evidence and argument as to the treatment of the grievant under the existing standard. The Arbitrator concluded that management had applied the existing standards properly, and that the excellent rating received by the grievant was proper a