49:1105(104)AR - - NTEU, Chapter 32 & Treasury, IRS, Denver District, Denver, CO - - 1994 FLRAdec AR - - v49 p1105



[ v49 p1105 ]
49:1105(104)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


49 FLRA No. 104

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

CHAPTER 32

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

DENVER DISTRICT

DENVER, COLORADO

(Agency)

0-AR-2546

_____

DECISION

May 25, 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 Jay C. Fogelberg filed by the Agency 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 Union filed an opposition to the Agency's exceptions.

The Arbitrator sustained a grievance disputing the Agency's failure to select two seasonal employees for promotion to permanent positions. The Arbitrator directed the Agency to promote the grievants retroactively and provide them backpay. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Agency's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Union grieved the Agency's failure to select seasonal employees from a best qualified list (BQL) of applicants for nine permanent vacancies, open to both permanent and seasonal employees. The grievance was not resolved and, as relevant here, the dispute over the nonselection of the two seasonal employees ranked first and fourth on the BQL was submitted to arbitration. In relevant part, the Arbitrator framed the issue as follows:

[D]id the Employer violate applicable provisions of the Master Agreement, the Code, and/or Federal regulations when it did not select "seasonal" employees from the [best qualified] list?

If so, what shall the appropriate remedy be?

Award at 2.

The Arbitrator found that the Agency selected only permanent employees from the BQL based on its understanding that an Agency "budgetary directive" precluded it from selecting seasonal employees for permanent vacancies. Id. at 23. The Arbitrator determined that this Agency action violated Article 4, Section 2(F) and (K) of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.(1) He found that "by deliberately excluding the [g]rievants from the promotion, the Agency effectively discriminated against them on the basis o[f] a non-merit factor when making [its] selections." Id. at 17. The Arbitrator noted, in this regard, that applicable regulations prohibited the Agency from using non-merit factors in this way.(2) According to the Arbitrator, the Agency gave the permanent employee applicants "an advantage, '. . . not authorized by law, rule or regulation . . .' for the purpose of improving their prospects for the promotion, over the seasonal people." Id. at 19. The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency's action "constitute[d] a personnel practice that is prohibited under the established authorities." Id.

The Arbitrator stated that the grievants "would most likely have received the promotions, if the Agency had not interpreted the budgetary directive as a restriction against all seasonal employees who expressed interest in the vacanc[ies]." Id. at 23. In this connection, the Arbitrator found that the grievants were already performing work similar to that required in the positions to be filled and that they were rated "significantly higher than most of the others" on the BQL. Id. Furthermore, according to testimony of a number of witnesses credited by the Arbitrator, the selecting official had indicated that she "would have liked to have selected" the grievants, but was prevented from doing so by the budgetary directive. Id. The Arbitrator concluded that there was a "direct connection . . . between the impropriety of the Agency's decision and the failure of these two employees to be promoted." Id. at 24. Accordingly, he sustained the grievance and ordered retroactive promotions and backpay.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. Exceptions

The Agency argues that the award is contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 2302, which is quoted in Article 4, Section 2(F) and (K) of the parties' agreement. According to the Agency, the Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board have "repeatedly rejected" the contention that violations of merit system principles constitute prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. § 2302. Exceptions at 7. The Agency maintains that the Arbitrator improperly interpreted Article 4, Section 2(F) and (K) "as providing that any violation of general merit system principles constitutes a prohibited personnel practice." Id.

The Agency also argues that the award is contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6), which is quoted in Article 4, Section 2(F) of the agreement. The Agency contends that section 2302(b)(6) "has been interpreted as being directed at purposeful discrimination to help or hinder particular individuals in obtaining employment without regard to their merit." Id. at 10. According to the Agency, the award conflicts with law because the Arbitrator did not find that "the Agency's actions in not selecting seasonals were directed towards or against any individuals." Id. at 11.

Finally, the Agency asserts that the award conflicts with its right under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the Statute to make selections for appointments. According to the Agency, "nothing in the law shall affect the authority of an agency to make selections from among properly ranked and certified candidates for promotion." Id. at 12. Moreover, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator improperly discounted the selecting official's testimony that she would not have selected the fourth-ranked grievant on the BQL even in the absence of the budgetary restrictions.

B. Opposition

The Union asserts that the award is consistent with law and claims that the Agency's exceptions constitute mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact, reasoning, conclusions, and evaluation of the evidence and testimony.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

The Authority has held that merit system principles are not self-executing and that, to establish a prohibited personnel practice under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b), a party must show that: (1) the disputed personnel action violated law, rule, or regulation; and (2) the law, rule, or regulation implements or directly concerns merit system principles. See, for example, National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-78 and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 46 FLRA 631, 636 (1992). In this case, the Arbitrator determined that: (1) the Agency violated applicable regulations, 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.102 and 300.103; and (2) the regulations implemented merit system principles. The record before us provides no basis for rejecting either finding. Accordingly, we have no basis on which to find the award deficient insofar as it holds that the Agency committed a prohibited personnel practice.

Next, we reject as unsupported the Agency's argument that the award conflicts with law because the Arbitrator did not find that the Agency's failure to select seasonal employees was "directed towards or against any individuals." Exceptions at 11. The matter of the Agency's failure to select two seasonal employees was submitted to arbitration. Although the issue framed by the Arbitrator was whether the Agency acted improperly "when it did not select 'seasonal' employees from the [BQL,]" the grievance clearly encompassed the effect of the Agency's action on the two grievants. Award at 2. In particular, the Arbitrator determined that, "by deliberately excluding the [g]rievants from the promotion, the Agency effectively discriminated against them on the basis o[f] a non-merit factor when making their selections." Id. at 17. Furthermore, the remedy fashioned by the Arbitrator concerned only the two grievants, not seasonal employees generally. Thus, the award concerns the Agency's actions with regard to two individual employees.

Finally, the Agency has not demonstrated that the award interferes with its right to make selections for appointments under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of