51:1693(142)AR - - DOD, NG Bureau, ID NG, Adjutant General, State of Idaho & AFGE Local 3006 - - 1996 FLRAdec AR - - v51 p1693
[ v51 p1693 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
51 FLRA No. 142
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, IDAHO NATIONAL GUARD
ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF IDAHO
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
July 31, 1996
Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz and Donald Wasserman, Members.(1)
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Thomas Q. Gilson 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 Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's exceptions.
The Arbitrator sustained the Union's grievance and directed the Agency to provide the grievant, who had been separated from his position as a national guard technician, with severance pay.
We conclude that the award is deficient because it is contrary to agency regulation. Accordingly, we set aside the award.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
The grievant was employed by the Agency as a civilian technician. Civilian technicians are required to maintain membership in the national guard as a condition of their employment. The Idaho National Guard limited the grievant's military reenlistment period to 3 years, rather than the 6-year period requested by the grievant, because of several incidents which reflected negatively on the grievant's leadership abilities and performance. Prior to the end of the 3-year reenlistment period, the Idaho National Guard initiated a bar to the grievant's reenlistment.(2) The grievant was discharged from the national guard when he was unable to remove the bar to his reenlistment. As a result, the Agency removed him from his civilian technician employment for failing to maintain membership in the national guard.
The Agency denied the grievant's request for severance pay on the basis of Technician Personnel Regulation (TPR) 990-2, which prohibits severance pay to a technician where it can be "reasonably established and documented" that the technician's reenlistment was barred for reason of misconduct, delinquency, or inefficiency.(3) The grievant filed a grievance challenging the Agency's denial of severance pay.
The Arbitrator acknowledged that the stated basis for the Agency's denial of severance pay was that the bar to the grievant's reenlistment was for reasons of misconduct, delinquency, or inefficiency. However, he ruled that the Agency had not reasonably established and documented such a basis for the bar. He concluded that the grievant was not given a fair and impartial chance to have the bar removed prior to the expiration of his term of military service. On the basis of the testimony of the grievant's commanding officer, the Arbitrator found that the officer had refused to recommend removal of the reenlistment bar because he had not had an opportunity to sufficiently observe the grievant in a leadership position. The Arbitrator determined that the Agency had put the grievant in an untenable situation by placing him in a position during his evaluation period that did not require leadership and, thereby, by precluding him from showing that he had overcome his deficiencies. Accordingly, the Arbitrator ruled that the grievant's separation from technician employment was involuntary and that he was entitled to severance pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5595(b) and 5 C.F.R. part 550, subpart G.(4) In awarding the grievant severance pay, the Arbitrator rejected the Agency's reliance on Jeffries v. Air Force, 999 F.2d 529 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Jeffries) and Buriani v. Air Force, 777 F.2d 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Buriani).
A. Agency's Contentions
The Agency contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator ruled on the substance of the military decision to bar the grievant's reenlistment and substituted his judgment for that of military leadership. The Agency argues that the Arbitrator based the award on testimony that merely explained why the grievant's commanding officer did not recommend removal of the reenlistment bar and that the testimony was unrelated to the merits of the original decision to impose the bar. The Agency also contends that the Arbitrator's award is deficient because it is based on nonfacts and is contrary to TPR 990-2.
B. Union's Opposition
As an threshold matter, the Union contends that the Agency's exceptions should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the award relates to a matter described in section 7121(f) of the Statute. Alternatively, the Union contends that the award is not deficient because the Arbitrator correctly found that the grievant was entitled to severance pay. The Union argues that TPR 990-2 cannot be used by the Agency to deny the grievant severance pay.(5)
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
A. The Authority Has Jurisdiction
Section 7122(a) of the Statute provides in pertinent part:
Either party to arbitration under this chapter may file with the Authority an exception to any arbitrator's award pursuant to the arbitration (other than an award relating to a matter described in section 7121(f) of this title).
The matters described in section 7121(f) are those matters covered under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 and 4303 and similar matters that arise in other personnel systems.(6) As raised by the Union, this case presents the jurisdictional issue of whether the Arbitrator's award is "an award relating to a matter described in section 7121(f)[.]"
In American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2986 and U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, The Adjutant General, State of Oregon, 51 FLRA No. 126 (1996) (National Guard Bureau), we concluded that awards resolving grievances over denials of severance pay do not relate to any matters described in section 7121(f), within the meaning of section 7122(a) of the Statute. For the reasons stated in National Guard Bureau, we conclude that the Authority has jurisdiction to review the Arbitrator's award resolving the dispute over severance pay, and we will resolve the Agency's exceptions.
B. The Award is Contrary to TPR 990-2
The substance of a military decision, such as a refusal to accept a reenlistment, is precluded as a matter of law from review outside the military command. Jeffries, 999 F.2d at 530 ("The cancellation of active reserve status is a uniquely military decision and is subject to review only within the military command."). Thus, the propriety of a civilian technician's discharge from the reserves is not reviewable indirectly by an arbitrator in resolving a grievance brought by a technician under the Statute. See id. at 532 (the grounds for discharge from the reserves are not reviewable indirectly through the Merit Systems Protection Board). Moreover, when military department regulations set out grounds on which a military separation will be considered voluntary for purposes of civilian employment, review of such a separation is limited to whether an individual lost reserve status for one of the reasons listed in the regulation. Id. at 530; Buriani, 777 F.2d at 677. Accordingly, such regulations preclude an arbitrator from making any collateral inquiry into the circumstances of the discharge from military service. See Buriani, 777 F.2d at 677 (an Air Force regulation specifying that loss of reserve status for failing to achieve a military promotion is a reason within the individual's control prevents any collateral inquiry