File 3: Member Pope's Opinion

[ v58 p235 ]


Dissenting Opinion of Member Pope

      I do not agree with the majority that the assignments at issue constituted "details" within the meaning of the parties' expired agreement. Accordingly, I dissent.

      The majority finds that it was "reasonable for the Judge to apply the OPM definition of the term," and summarily concludes that the disputed assignments are details. [n1]  Majority at 5. In reaching that conclusion, the majority fails to address the General Counsel's argument that the Judge ignored record evidence that the disputed assignments were not details. In fact, the majority reaches its conclusion without relying on -- or even acknowledging -- any factual findings in the Judge's decision or evidence in the record.

      Addressing the General Counsel's claim, and examining the record as a whole, I would find -- whether or not the OPM definition is applied -- that the Respondent did not establish that the disputed assignments are appropriately considered details.

      It is undisputed that nothing in the parties' agreement defines the term "detail" or otherwise explains how it is to be applied. The Respondent's only evidence regarding its construction of the term "detail" is the testimony of one witness, the Acting Chief, that the disputed assignments were made "to meet mission objectives," as required by Article 16 of