49:0824(77)AR - - HHS, SSA and AFGE, Local 2369 - - 1994 FLRAdec AR - - v49 p824



[ v49 p824 ]
49:0824(77)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


49 FLRA No. 77

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2369

(Union)

0-AR-2545

_____

DECISION

April 21, 1994

_____

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 Monroe Berkowitz 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 denied a grievance contesting the grievant's annual performance appraisal. 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 filed a grievance disputing her performance ratings in Generic Job Task (GJT) Nos. 1 and 40.(1) When the grievance was not resolved, it was submitted to arbitration on the following issue:

Was [the grievant's] 1992 performance appraisal prepared in accordance with the National Agreement? If not, what shall the remedy be?

Award at 1.

The Arbitrator stated that the grievant was rated at level 3 (fully successful) in the two disputed GJTs and that the grievant sought level 4 (excellent) ratings in them. In addition, the Arbitrator stated that the grievant sought level 5 (outstanding) ratings in the three remaining GJTs, for which she had received level 4 ratings.(2) Further, the Arbitrator stated that, according to the Union, the ratings should be raised because the grievant's supervisor failed to: (1) explain the grievant's performance standards, (2) document the grievant's ratings, and (3) consider circumstances b