American Federation of Government Employees Local 2145 (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Richmond, Virginia (Agency)
63 FLRA No. 177
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
August 13, 2009
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman and
Thomas M. Beck, Member
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition.
The Arbitrator denied the grievant’s claim for reimbursement under the Agency’s Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP). For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Union’s exceptions.
II. Background and Arbitrator’s Award
The grievant, a medical technologist, was employed by the Agency from May 2004 until May 2006. During the summer of 2005, the grievant learned about the Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP). The EDRP is an initiative “designed to enhance the recruitment and retention of health professionals that are required to meet the staffing needs of the [Veterans Health Administration] VHA.” Award at 3. The EDRP is set forth in VHA Handbook 1021.1. See id. at 9-10. The EDRP reimburses payments made on student loans for employees in hard to fill professions as long as the education is relevant to the degree required for the job. See id. at 9. Normally, employees apply for EDRP when they begin to work for the Agency. When the grievant learned about the program, she applied for reimbursement. Shortly thereafter, the Agency notified the grievant that she was not eligible for the EDRP because she had not applied within the first six months of her employment. The grievant filed a grievance claiming that she did not apply earlier because the Agency did not inform her of the program at the time of her recruitment. The Agency acknowledged that the grievant may not have received information about the program and that as a result, the grievant’s application would be accepted without regard to timeliness. Thereafter, the grievant filed her application. However, the reimbursement was denied because, according to the Agency, local management had not listed her occupation as hard to fill in the May 31, 2002 announcement of the EDRP. A grievance was filed, and when it was not resolved it was submitted to arbitration.
As relevant here, the Arbitrator framed the issue as: “Whether the Agency violated the Master Agreement [CBA] and a previous grievance decision when it denied the grievant’s application for EDRP reimbursement; and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?”
Award at 11.
Before the Arbitrator, the Union argued that the Agency violated the CBA and regulation by refusing to consider the grievant for the EDRP. Id. at 15. The Agency argued that the EDRP “requires facility reviews of the occupations allowed to participate at the facility level” and that “it also requires a local announcement of the program, including the listing of eligible occupations at the facility level.” Id. at 17. The Arbitrator interpreted and applied VHA Handbook 1021.1, in particular Parts 4 and 5, and found that under the VHA Handbook 1021.1, the “facility [d]irector” was responsible for the implementation and management of the EDRP, and that therefore, it was the facility director’s responsibility to announce the educational assistance opportunities under the EDRP. Id. at 18. The Arbitrator also found that the Union failed to show that prior announcements published by the Richmond facility contained all of the occupations designated in VHA Handbook 1021.1. See id. Specifically, the Arbitrator found that the May 31 announcement listed only “nine occupations.” Id. Finally, the Arbitrator found that, in the past, the Richmond facility had made local determinations concerning difficult to recruit positions. See id. at 18-19. Therefore, the Arbitrator concluded that the Union failed to show that the local facility had no discretion in determining EDRP eligible occupations. See id. at 18.
Additionally, the Arbitrator credited an e-mail from an Agency employee at the Healthcare Retention and Recruitment Office (HRRO) in New Orleans -- the office with responsibility for EDRP management -- which noted that the grievant’s application should not have been accepted because her occupation was not listed in the EDRP May 31 announcement. See id. at 19. The Arbitrator concluded that “absent any evidence of a national or regional policy or practice to the contrary” he could not credit “the Union’s reading of the [VHA Handbook] 1021.1 requirement over the directive of an HRRO employee with responsibility for EDRP management.” Id. Based on his findings, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
III. Union’s Exceptions
The Union argues that the award violates the “regulations controlling the program and laid out in the handbook for the program.” Exceptions at 3. The Union claims that EDRP is funded at the “national level” and that under the VHA Handbook 1021.1 “local applicants are supposed to be considered and evaluated on their merits as a national matter and not the local facility.” Exceptions at 4. The Union asserts that there is no evidence of a past practice based on local determination of “hard to fill” positions. Id. The Union also asserts that the VHA Handbook does not “state that to be eligible, a determination must or can be made by the local facility. . . .” Id. at 5. According to the Union, the VHA Handbook states that “[f]unding for EDRP is centralized.” Id. The Union also asserts that the award “ignores” the CBA. Id. at 6.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
A. The award is not contrary to VHA Handbook 1021.1.
The Union argues that the Arbitrator erred in his interpretation of the VHA Handbook 1021.1 because the list of occupations eligible for the EDRP is determined at the national, rather than at the local, level.
Section 7122(a)(1) of the Statute provides that an arbitration award will be found deficient if it conflicts with any law, rule, or regulation. For purposes of § 7122(a)(1), the term “regulation” includes governing agency regulations. See United States Dep’t of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., Wash., D.C., 58 FLRA 23, 25 (2002) (citation omitted). As the Union’s exception challenges the award’s consistency with VA Handbook 1021.1 -- the Agency handbook containing directions, guidance and procedures for the administration of the EDRP -- we review the question of law raised by the exception de novo. See AFGE, Local 1203, 55 FLRA 528, 530 (1999). In so doing, the Authority will determine whether the award is inconsistent with the plain wording of, or is otherwise impermissible under, the rule or regulation. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Serv., Ogden Serv. Ctr., Ogden, Utah, 42 FLRA 1034, 1056-57 (1991). In applying a standard of de novo review, the Authority assesses whether an arbitrator’s legal conclusions are consistent with the applicable standard of law, based on the arbitrator’s underlying factual findings. NFFE, Local 1437, 53 FLRA 1703, 1710 (1998) (NFFE, Local 1437). In making that assessment, the Authority defers to the arbitrator’s underlying factual findings. See id.
The VHA Handbook 1021.1 sets forth the directions, guidance and procedures for the administration of the EDRP. See Transmittal Letter, VHA Handbook 1021.1, attached to Union’s Exceptions. The Arbitrator denied the merits of the grievance based on his conclusions that the Union failed to show that the local facility had no discretion to determine EDRP eligibility for occupations listed in the VHA Handbook 1021.1.
In support of his conclusion, the
Arbitrator found that under the VHA Handbook 1021.1, the facility director is
responsible for the implementation and management of the EDRP, and that
therefore, it is the facility director’s responsibility to announce the
educational assistance opportunities under the EDRP. See Award at 18. The
Arbitrator also found that the Union failed to show that prior announcements
published by the Richmond facility contained all of the occupations designated
in VHA Handbook 1021.1. See id. Specifically, the Arbitrator found
that the announcement issued in 2002 listed only nine occupations. See id.
Finally, the Arbitrator found that, in the past, the Richmond facility had made
local determinations concerning difficult to recruit positions. See id.
18-19. In this connection, we find that the Arbitrator’s factual findings
support his conclusion that the Union failed to show that the local facility
had no discretion to determine the occupations listed in the May 31 EDRP announcement.
As the Union has not challenged the Arbitrator’s factual findings, we defer to
the Arbitrator in this regard. See NFFE, Local 1437, 53
at 1710. Consequently, we find that the Union has not demonstrated that the Arbitrator erred in his interpretation of the VHA Handbook 1021.1. See NTEU, 63 FLRA 70, 72-73 (2009) (where the Authority denied the union’s contrary to law exceptions based on factual findings not challenged by the union). Accordingly, we deny the Union’s exception.
B. The award draws its essence from the CBA.
We construe the Union’s argument that the award ignores the CBA as a claim that the award fails to draw its essence from the agreement.
In reviewing an arbitrator’s
interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the Authority applies the
deferential standard of review that federal courts use in reviewing arbitration
awards in the private sector. See 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a)(2); AFGE,
54 FLRA 156, 159 (1998). Under this standard, the Authority will find that an arbitration award is deficient as failing to draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement when the appealing party establishes that the award: (1) cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected with the wording and purposes of the collective bargaining agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; (3) does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or (4) evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement. See United States Dep’t of Labor (OSHA), 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990). The Authority and the courts defer to arbitrators in this context “because it is the arbitrator’s construction of the agreement for which the parties have bargained.” Id. at 576.
In this case, the Union has failed to provide any argument to support its claim that the award fails to draw its essence from the CBA. When a party fails to provide any arguments or authority to support its exception, the Authority will deny the exception as a bare assertion. See United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., United States Customs and Border Prot., Port of Seattle, Seattle, Wash., 60 FLRA 490, 492 n.7 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the Union’s exception.
The Union’s exceptions are denied.
Relevant Provisions of VHA Handbook 1021.1
b. This authority permits VA to provide education debt reduction
payments to employees with qualifying loans who occupy positions
providing direct-patient care services or services incident to direct-patient
care services for which recruitment and retention of qualified personnel is
difficult. For the purposes of this program, these positions are limited to
the following: . . . (21) Medical technologist. . . .
a. Health Care Staff Development
and Retention Office
The Director, HCSDRO, is
national implementation and management of EDRP. This includes:
(2) Allocating funds to facilities and Veterans Integrated Service
Networks (VISNs). . . .
(4) Monitoring facility and VISN compliance with applicable
b. Facility Responsibility
(1) Facility Director. The facility Director is responsible for local-
level EDRP implementation and management consistent with VA and
VHA directives. More specifically, the facility Director is responsible for: . . .
(b) Identifying a Program Coordinator and establishing a selection
(c) Publishing an open continuous announcement about
educational assistance opportunities under EDRP.
(d) Forwarding the applications of candidates that are
recommended for program participation to HCSDRO.
. . . .
a. An employee must meet specific eligibility requirements to
participate in EDRP. To be eligible for participation, the individual:
(I) Must be a recently appointed VITA employee serving in one of
the following positions: . . . (u) Medical technologist.
. . . .
a. Funding for EDRP is centralized. HCSDRO is responsible for
managing the funding process consistent with available funds, overall
VHA goals and identified health care staffing needs. Education debt
reduction awards are based on the availability of funds and Department need.
Debt reduction awards ar