14:0444(70)AR - SSA and AFGE Local 1164 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR
[ v14 p444 ]
14:0444(70)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
14 FLRA No. 70
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Agency
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1164, AFL-CIO
Union
Case No. O-AR-325
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator Peter R. Blum filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union filed an opposition.
/1/
The dispute in this case concerns the termination of the grievant
during her probationary period for unsatisfactory work performance. She
filed a grievance claiming that, in so doing, management had violated
the parties' collective bargaining agreement and seeking reinstatement
with backpay for an additional period of probation in order to
demonstrate satisfactory work performance.
The Arbitrator first determined that the grievance was grievable and
arbitrable, rejecting the argument that this matter was not grievable
and arbitrable because it concerned alleged violations of the agreement
that were directly connected with the grievant's termination during her
probationary period. The Arbitrator further determined that management
had violated the agreement and as a remedy ordered the grievant
reinstated and continued her probationary period.
In its exception the Agency contends that the award is deficient in
its entirety because it is contrary to law and regulation. The
Authority agrees.
In Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
3342, 14 FLRA No. 33 (1984), the Authority specifically held on the
basis of the rationale and conclusion of the court in Department of
Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Federal Labor
Relations Authority, 709 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1983), that coverage by a
negotiated grievance procedure of a grievance concerning the separation
of a probationary employee is precluded by governing law and regulation.
Thus, in terms of this case, the Authority concludes that the award,
both by finding the grievance, which was clearly linked to the Agency's
decision to terminate the grievant during her probationary period for
unsatisfactory work performance, grievable and arbitrable and by
resolving the grievance on the merits and ordering the grievant
reinstated, is deficient in its entirety as contrary to the statutory
and regulatory scheme set forth in 5 U.S.C. 3321 and 5 CFR part 315,
subpart H. /2/ Accordingly, the award is set aside.
Issued, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ In its opposition, the Union argues that the exceptions must be
dismissed as premature under the Authority's Rules and Regulations
because the Arbitrator retained jurisdiction for a period of 60 days.
However, the retention of jurisdiction to resolve possible problems of
implementation provides no basis for finding premature the Agency's
exceptions to the award.
/2/ At all relevant times in this case, 5 U.S.C. 3321 and 5 CFR part
315, subpart H have remained substantially unchanged.