19:1177(129)AR - VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL and AFGE Local 547 -- 1985 FLRAdec AR
[ v19 p1177 ]
19:1177(129)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
19 FLRA No. 129
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, TAMPA, FLORIDA
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 547
Union
Case No. O-AR-791
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator J. A. Raffaele filed by the Veterans Administration (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 grievant, a GS-5 laboratory technician, claimed that he should
have been promoted to GS-7 supervisory laboratory technician, the target
level of his position. A desk audit of the grievant's position was
conducted by the Chief of the Activity's Classification and Wage Section
to assist in determining the then current duties and responsibilities
and proper grade level of the position. The classifier initially found
that the grievant was performing all of the duties of the target level
position. However, upon review of the initial desk audit findings with
the grievant's supervisors, the classifier determined that the proper
grade level of the duties actually performed by the grievant was GS-5
and that the target level position had been incorrectly classified. The
classifier further determined that the position was not a supervisory
position under applicable classification standards. Accordingly, the
position was redescribed and reclassified as a GS-5 nonsupervisory
laboratory technician position. The grievant then alleged that he had
been improperly denied a promotion to GS-7 and that his new position
description did not accurately reflect his duties.
The Arbitrator found, in pertinent part, that the desk audit showed
that the grievant was performing the duties of the GS-7 position
description and the fact that the classifier subsequently determined
with input from the grievant's supervisors that the initial finding was
incorrect and that the target level position was erroneously classified
did not establish that there was any error. The Arbitrator concluded
that based upon the desk audit, the GS-7 position description was a more
accurate description of the grievant's position than the new GS-5
description, which was formulated with supervisory input, and that while
it may be that the grievant cannot be a supervisor under classification
standards, that did not mean that he should not be permitted to continue
to function under the GS-7 position description. The Arbitrator found
that the grievance was arbitrable and as his award on the merits
directed, among other things, that the grievant "be given" the GS-7
position description; that the grievant be retroactively promoted to
GS-7 for a particular period of time ending with the reclassification
action; and that the Activity submit the GS-7 position description to
the Office of Personnel Management for determination of the proper grade
level and take further action based upon that determination.
As one of its exceptions, the Agency contends, that the award is
contrary to section 7121(c)(5) of the Statute, which excludes from the
coverage of negotiated grievance procedures any grievance concerning the
classification of a position which does not result in the reduction in
grade or pay of an employee. /1/ The Authority agrees.
The Authority has recognized that a grievance concerning the accuracy
of an employee's official position description, such as a grievance as
to whether the duties regularly assigned by management and performed by
the grievant are accurately reflected in the position description, is
not a grievance concerning classification within the meaning of section
7121(c)(5). Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, Tampa, Florida and Federal Aviation Science and
Technological Association of Government Employees, 8 FLRA 532, 535
(1982). However, the Authority has also held that when the essential
nature of a grievance goes beyond the accuracy of the contents of the
grievant's position description and is integrally related to the
accuracy of the classification of the grievant's position, e.g., where
the substance of the dispute concerns the grade level of the duties
assigned to and performed by the grievant, the grievance concerns the
classification of a position within the meaning of section 7121(c)(5)
and an award finding such a grievance arbitrable and resolving it on the
merits is deficient as contrary to that provision of the Statute. Id.,
534-35.
In terms of this case, while the grievant alleged that his new
position description was inaccurate, the essential nature of the
grievance and the Arbitrator's award clearly went beyond the accuracy of
the contents of his position description. Rather, the substance of the
dispute was whether the grievant's position was properly classified and
particularly concerned the grade level of the duties assigned to and
performed by the grievant. Thus, the essence of the grievance the
Arbitrator addressed and resolved was so integrally related to, and
controlling of, the classification of the grievant's position, that it
must be found to be a grievance "concerning . . . the classification of
any position which does not result in the reduction in grade or pay of
an employee" under section 7121(c)(5).
Accordingly, the Arbitrator's award, finding the grievance arbitrable
and resolving the dispute on the merits is deficient as contrary to
section 7121(c)(5) and is hereby set aside.
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 7121(c)(5) provides:
Sec. 7121. Grievance procedures
. . . .
(c) The preceding subsections of this section shall not apply
with respect to any grievance concerning--
. . . .
(5) the classification of any position which does not result in
the reduction in grade or pay of an employee.