Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

20:0692(81)AR - National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR and AFGE Local 3393, NCTR, Jefferson, AR -- 1985 FLRAdec AR

[ v20 p692 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 20 FLRA No. 81
                                             Case No. 0-AR-984
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Joe D. Woodward 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.
    According to the Arbitrator, this case arose when John Honeycutt, a
 mechanic with the Activity, was detailed from January to November 1984
 to perform computer programming duties.  During August 1984, the
 Activity advertised an opportunity for an assistant planner and
 estimator.  John Honeycutt and seven other employees applied for the
 position, and all were placed on the best qualified list.  John
 Honeycutt was selected for the position and the seven other employees
 filed a grievance protesting the selection that was ultimately submitted
 to arbitration.  The parties stipulated the issue for resolution by the
 Arbitrator as whether the Activity violated the collective bargaining
 agreement, law, or regulation when it detailed John Honeycutt improperly
 to an unclassified position which gave him preferential treatment over
 other employees for the position of assistant planner and estimator and,
 if so, what shall be the remedy.  In this respect the Arbitrator stated
 that the burden in this case was clearly on the Union to prove that but
 for any improper action in the wrongful detail of John Honeycutt, he
 would not have been selected for the position.  After considering the
 evidence presented, the Arbitrator determined that the Union failed to
 meet its burden and that there was no substantial connection between the
 detail and the selection.  However, the Arbitrator proceeded to rule
 that the agreement had been violated by the improper detail of John
 Honeycutt.  Accordingly, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance and
 ordered that personnel records be amended to show that John Honeycutt
 was temporarily promoted instead of being detailed during the period of
 time in question.
    In its exception the Agency essentially contends that the Arbitrator
 decided an issue not submitted and ordered relief that was not requested
 by the Union, discussed at the hearing, or provided for by law or the
 collective bargaining agreement.
    The Authority has clearly indicated that an award may be found
 deficient as in excess of the arbitrator's authority when the arbitrator
 resolves an issue not submitted, e.g., Federal Aviation Science and
 Technological Association, Local No. 291, Fort Worth, Texas and Federal
 Aviation Administration, Fort Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center,
 Airway Facilities Sector, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, Texas, 3 FLRA
 544 (1980), or awards relief to persons who did not file grievances on
 their own behalf or who did not have the union file grievances for them,
 e.g., American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National
 Immigration and Naturalization Service Council and U.S. Immigration and
 Naturalization Service, 15 FLRA No. 76 (1984).  In terms of this case,
 the Authority concludes that the Agency has substantiated that the issue
 as stipulated by the parties for resolution pertained solely to whether
 John Honeycutt improperly gained preferential treatment over the
 grievants for the assistant planner position as the result of his
 detail.  Thus, the Authority finds that the Arbitrator exceeded his
 authority by deciding an issue not presented to him when he considered
 the issue of the proper recordation of the detail of John Honeycutt.
 The Authority further finds that by ordering that personnel records be
 amended to show that John Honeycutt was temporarily promoted, the
 Arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding relief to an employee who
 did not grieve and who did not have the Union file a grievance for him.
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 987, 18 FLRA
 No. 104 (1985).
    Accordingly, the award is set aside.
    Issued, Washington, D.C., November 20, 1985
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY