American Federation of Government Employees, Local 148, Council of Prison Locals (Union) and Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (Activity)
[ v07 p95 ]
07:0095(14)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
7 FLRA No. 14
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 148, COUNCIL OF
PRISON LOCALS
Union
and
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
U.S. PENITENTIARY,
LEWISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Activity
Case No. O-AR-101
DECISION
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF
ARBITRATOR HERBERT D. ROSSMAN FILED BY THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7122(A)
OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C.
7122(A)) (THE STATUTE).
ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN
THE GRIEVANT, A WS-11, WAS APPOINTED ACTING GENERAL FOREMAN, WS-15,
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1979. ON AUGUST 1, 1979, THE GRIEVANT WAS TEMPORARILY
PROMOTED TO THE WS-15 POSITION AND WAS PAID AT THE WS-15 RATE UNTIL
AUGUST 19, 1979, WHEN HE RETURNED TO HIS REGULAR POSITION. A GRIEVANCE
WAS FILED WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION CLAIMING THAT
UNDER THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE GRIEVANT WAS
ENTITLED TO HAVE BEEN PAID AT THE WS-15 RATE AS OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE
ASSIGNMENT.
THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINED THAT UNDER THE TEMPORARY PROMOTION
PROVISION OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT, /1/ AN EMPLOYEE ASSIGNED TO A
HIGHER GRADE POSITION, INCLUDING SUPERVISORY POSITIONS, MUST BE PAID AT
THE HIGHER RATE OF PAY FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSIGNMENT WHENEVER THE
ASSIGNMENT IS FOR THREE WEEKS OR LONGER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ARBITRATOR
AWARDED THE GRIEVANT THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY BETWEEN WS-11 AND WS-15 FOR
THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1979, TO JULY 31, 1979.
THE AGENCY FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD UNDER SECTION
7122(A) OF THE STATUTE /2/ AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425). THE UNION FILED AN OPPOSITION. /3/
IN ITS FIRST EXCEPTION THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS CONTRARY
TO THE STATUTE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXCEPTION, THE AGENCY MAINTAINS THAT
THE ARBITRATOR VIOLATED THE STATUTE BY APPLYING THE TEMPORARY PROMOTION
PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT TO A SUPERVISORY POSITION IN DISREGARD TO
SECTION 7112(B)(1) WHICH EXCLUDES SUPERVISORY POSITIONS FROM BARGAINING
UNITS. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AWARD IS
CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE. THE AUTHORITY IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA NO. 77 AT 25-27(1980),
ENFORCED SUB NOM. AS TO OTHER MATTERS IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, . . . F.2D . . . (D.C. CIR. 1981),
WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TEMPORARY PROMOTION PROVISION,
SPECIFICALLY REJECTED A CONTENTION SIMILAR TO THE AGENCY'S IN THIS CASE.
IN WRIGHT-PATTERSON THE RELEVANT QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY WAS
WHETHER A BARGAINING PROPOSAL, PROVIDING FOR A TEMPORARY PROMOTION WHEN
AN EMPLOYEE IS ASSIGNED TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION FOR MORE THAN 30
DAYS, WAS INCONSISTENT WITH LAW TO THE EXTENT IT WOULD APPLY TO
SUPERVISORY POSITIONS. IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS WITHIN THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY REJECTED THE ALLEGATION THAT
APPLICATION OF SUCH A PROVISION TO SUPERVISORY POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE
BARGAINING UNIT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH LAW. INSTEAD, THE AUTHORITY HELD
THAT THE REQUIRED TEMPORARY PROMOTION SIMPLY WOULD PROVIDE THE EMPLOYEE
WITH COMPENSATION COMMENSURATE WITH THE HIGHER GRADE POSITION TO WHICH
MANAGEMENT HAS ASSIGNED THE EMPLOYEE. ACCORD, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE LOCALS AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, 4 FLRA
NO. 52(1980); METHODS AND STANDARDS ASSOCIATION AND NAVAL AIR REWORK
FACILITY, NAVAL AIR STATION, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, 2 FLRA NO. 34(1979).
BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT PROVISION APPLIED BY THE ARBITRATOR IS
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE PROPOSAL IN WRIGHT-PATTERSON AND BECAUSE
THAT APPLICATION IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN
WRIGHT-PATTERSON, THE AGENCY'S FIRST EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR
FINDING THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD DEFICIENT.
IN ITS SECOND EXCEPTION THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES
AN EXPRESS LIMITATION CONTAINED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
SPECIFICALLY, THE AGENCY MAINTAINS THAT THE ARBITRATOR FAILED TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE TEMPORARY PROMOTION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS
EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO POSITIONS WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT. HOWEVER,
THIS EXCEPTION CONSTITUTES NOTHING MORE THAN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
ARBITRATOR'S INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AGREEMENT PROVISION
BEFORE HIM AND CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD
DEFICIENT. E.G., DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 375 AIR BASE GROUP, SCOTT AIR
FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ARMY MISSILE MATERIAL
READINESS COMMAND (USAMIRCOM) AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1858, AFL-CIO, 2 FLRA NO. 60(1980).
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DENIED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 30, 1981
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
/1/ ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THIS PROVISION, ARTICLE 31, SECTION
P, PROVIDES:
THE EMPLOYER AGREES THAT ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE UNIT FOR WHOM A KNOWN
DETAIL IS PLANNED TO A
HIGHER GRADE POSITION IN THE UNIT AND WHICH IS FOR THREE FULL WEEKS
OR MORE AND WHO IS
QUALIFIED SHALL BE TEMPORARILY PROMOTED AND SHALL RECEIVE THE RATE OF
PAY FOR THE POSITION TO
WHICH TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED. IN SUCH CASES THE PAY WILL START AS OF
THE FIRST DAY OF THE
ASSIGNMENT. TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS SHALL NOT BE MADE FOR LESS THAN
THREE FULL WEEKS. SHORT
DETAILS WILL NOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING TEMPORARY
PROMOTIONS.
/2/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES:
SEC. 7122. EXCEPTIONS TO ARBITRAL AWARDS
(A) EITHER PARTY TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY FILE WITH THE
AUTHORITY AN EXCEPTION TO ANY ARBITRATOR'S AWARE PURSUANT TO THE
ARBITRATION (OTHER THAN AN AWARD RELATING TO A MATTER DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 7121(F) OF THIS TITLE). IF UPON REVIEW THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT--
(1) BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION; OR
(2) ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN
PRIVATE SECTOR
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS;
THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH
APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES OR REGULATIONS.
/3/ IN ITS OPPOSITION THE UNION ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE AGENCY'S
EXCEPTIONS WERE UNTIMELY. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTIONS WERE TIMELY
FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THIS MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE
THE AUTHORITY FOR DECISION.