United States Department of the Army, Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, Alabama (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1945 (Union)
64 FLRA No. 2
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
August 26, 2009
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and
Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Gerard P. Fleischut filed by the Agency under § 7122 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations. The Union did not file an opposition to the Agency’s exceptions.
After concluding that the grievance concerned classification and was not subject to arbitration, the Arbitrator awarded the grievant a series of temporary promotions with backpay. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the award of temporary promotions with backpay is contrary to § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute.
II. Background and Arbitrator’s Award
According to the Arbitrator, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievant, who is assigned to a WG-8 position, seeking his permanent promotion to a WG-10 position. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievance concerned classification and was not subject to arbitration. He determined that, instead, the dispute must be resolved as a “position classification appeal[.]” Award at 3. Consequently, he denied the requested relief of a permanent promotion. Id. However, because he found that the grievant had performed work at the WG-10 level after the expiration of his temporary promotion to a WG-10 position, the Arbitrator awarded him a series of temporary promotions with backpay for periods in which he had continued to perform WG-10 work. Id. at 2, 4. In this connection, the Arbitrator found that the Agency “had a practice of making 120[-]day temporary promotions” and that there was “no contract provision prohibiting this practice.” Id. at 4.
III. Agency’s Exceptions
The Agency contends that the award is contrary to § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute. The Agency maintains that the grievance sought a permanent promotion to WG-10 and that the Arbitrator correctly concluded that the grievance was not subject to arbitration because it concerned position classification. Accordingly, the Agency claims that “[a]s the arbitrator issued a remedy over a complaint that he himself found was statutorily excluded from the definition of a negotiated grievance, the award violates . . . § 7121 and must be set aside.” Exceptions at 3. Alternatively, the Agency contends that, as the grievance sought a permanent promotion, the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding temporary promotions. Id. at 5. Finally, the Agency contends that, in any event, the award of temporary promotions with backpay is contrary to the Back Pay Act because they are not based on a regulation or contract provision making temporary promotions mandatory for details to higher-graded positions. Id. at 4.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
When an exception involves an award’s consistency with law, the Authority reviews any quest