48:0406(38)AR - - HHS, SSA, Baltimore, MD and AFGE, Local 1923 - - 1993 FLRAdec AR - - v48 p406
[ v48 p406 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
48 FLRA No. 38
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1923 AFL-CIO
August 31, 1993
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Earle William Hockenberry 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 did not file an opposition to the Union's exceptions.
The Arbitrator sustained, in part, the grievance of an employee contesting the ratings she received in two elements of her performance appraisal and ordered that the Agency reevaluate the grievant's performance. The Union excepts only to the part of the award ordering reevaluation. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievant, a GS-11 Disability Examiner, received a performance appraisal in which, as relevant here, she was rated as performing at "level 4" in two Generic Job Tasks (GJTs), with an overall rating of "excellent."(*) The grievant asserted that the disputed ratings should be changed to "level 5" and that her overall rating should be raised to "outstanding." The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration on the following stipulated issue:
Was the [g]rievant, . . . , properly evaluated in GJT 5 and GJT 40? If not, should the designation "N" be used for such GJT's?
Award at 2.
The Arbitrator found that the grievant's supervisor "did not write [the grievant's performance appraisal] with levels in mind. . . . [and] did not show any comparison of actual work, [during grievant's review, instead] choosing to motivate her employees with positive statements." Id. at 3. The Arbitrator also found that the evaluation contained "no further explanation of the rating nor . . . a comparison of examples of actual work performed with the performance standard." Id. at 4. The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency failed to comply with the Agency's Personnel Manual, which, he found, requires that an employee's rating be explained and that an appraisal include a comparison of actu