22:0056(5)AR - Justice, Bureau of Federal Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, TX And AFGE, Council of Prison Locals, Local 1637 -- 1986 FLRAdec AR
[ v22 p56 ]
22:0056(5)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
22 FLRA No. 5
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
BUREAU OF FEDERAL PRISONS,
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
SEAGOVILLE, TEXAS
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS,
LOCAL NO. 1637
Union
Case No. 0-AR-991
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Charles N. Carnes filed by the Activity under section 7122(a)
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
The dispute before the Arbitrator arose when the Activity proposed to
suspend the grievant for 14 days for continuing to work on a particular
project after being instructed by his supervisor to stop. The
Activity's notice of proposed suspension advised the grievant, among
other things, that he would be granted a reasonable amount of official
time to review the materials upon which the proposed action was based
and to present a reply. The grievant's request for eight hours of
"administrative time" to prepare his reply was denied by the Activity's
Personnel Office on the ground that there was no provision in the
parties' collective bargaining agreement for granting any time at that
stage of the proceeding. The grievant then prepared his reply to the
notice of proposed action on his own time after duty hours. The
grievant eventually was suspended for three days and filed the grievance
before the Arbitrator in this case. The grievance contested the merits
of the suspension action and also raised a number of procedural issues,
including the Activity's denial of the grievant's request for time to
prepare his case.
As to the merits, the Arbitrator determined that the Activity had
established just and sufficient cause for the 3-day suspension. As to
the pertinent procedural issue, however, the Arbitrator found that the
grievant's rights were violated when his request for time to prepare his
case was denied. The Arbitrator noted that the Activity had promised
the grievant a reasonable amount of official time for that purpose and
was obligated to keep its promise. The Arbitrator also found that the
negotiated grievance procedures of the parties' agreement cover all
matters grievable under section 7121 of the Statute and provide that
employees will be allowed a reasonable amount of official time to
present their grievances. The Arbitrator concluded that the subject
matter of the dispute before him met the broad definition of "grievance"
under section 7103(a)(9) of the Statute for which official time was
allowable under the agreement. The Arbitrator further concluded that in
the circumstances involved the grievant should have been granted four
hours of official time to prepare his case. As a remedy, the Arbitrator
awarded the grievant four hours of pay.
III. EXCEPTIONS
In its exceptions, the Agency contends that the award of four hours
pay is contrary to law. More specifically, the Agency argues that the
award is contrary to the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5596, because it
in effect requires the retroactive payment of four hours of overtime pay
to the grievant and the findings necessary for such a payment under the
Back Pay Act were not made. The Agency also argues that the award is
contrary to section 7131(d) of the Statute because official time can
only be granted in circumstances where the employee would otherwise be
in a duty status and the grievant in this case performed the case
preparation work on his own time during nonduty hours.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Authority finds that the Agency has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient as alleged. In a recent decision,
American Federation of Government Employees and Social Security
Administration, 21 FLRA No. 14 (1986), the Authority reiterated its
previous indications that section 7131(d) of the Statute /*/ expressly
authorizes parties to negotiate for the granting of official time for
the performance of specified activities and that the Statute effectively
provides a remedy when official time under section 7131(d) is wrongfully
denied. Thus, where official time, authorized by provisions of a
collective bargaining agreement consistent with section 7131(d) of the
Statute, is wrongfully denied and the covered activities are thereafter
performed on nonduty time, section 7131(d) entitles the aggrieved
employee to be paid for the amount of time that should have been
official time. In this case, while the grievant was not engaged in
union representational activities, section 7131(d)(2) of the Statute
expressly provides for official time for bargaining unit employees "in
connection with any other matter covered by this chapter." The
Arbitrator found the dispute was a "grievance" covered by the Statute
and the parties' agreement and that under the agreement the grievant was
entitled to four hours of official time. Thus, the Arbitrator
effectively found that the conditions of section 7131(d) had been met.
With regard to the Agency's specific contentions, the Authority first
finds that the Agency's argument that the Arbitrator's award is contrary
to the Back Pay Act because the Arbitrator awarded the grievant
retroactive overtime pay without making the necessary findings for such
an award is without merit. The Authority has determined that
performance of representational activities on nonduty time (outside
regular working hours) is not overtime work. See Social Security
Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1164, AFL-CIO, 19 FLRA No. 4 (1985); National Treasury Employees Union
v. Gregg, No. 83-546, slip op. at 4-5 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 1983). The
Authority therefore concludes, contrary to the Agency's contention, that
since the grievant's performance on nonduty time of case preparation
work for which official time should have been granted under section
7131(d)(2) was not overtime uork, the Arbitrator did not award
retroactive overtime pay and his award is not contrary to the Back Pay
Act. With regard to the Agency's argument that under section 7131(d) of
the Statute and employee must "otherwise be in a duty status" in order
to be eligible to receive official time, such argument is also without
merit. While subsections (a), (b) and (c) of section 7131 are explicit
in regard to requiring an employee to be in a duty status in order to
receive official time, subsection (d) is silent in that regard. In
interpreting that subsection, the Authority has clearly indicated that
it is not required that an employee would otherwise have been in a duty
status in order to be entitled to official time under Section 7131(d).
See Local 1164, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and
Social Security Administration, Boston Region, 19 FLRA No. 110 (1985).
The Authority therefore concludes that the Agency has also failed to
establish that the Arbitrator's award is contrary to section 7131(d) of
the Statute as alleged.
V. DECISION
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Agency's exceptions are
denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(*) Section 7131(d) provides:
(d) Except as provided in the preceding subsections of this
section --
(1) any employee representing an exclusive representative, or
(2) in connection with any other matter covered by this
chapter, any employee in an appropriate unit represented by an
exclusive representative,
shall be granted official time in any amount the agency and the
exclusive representative involved agree to be reasonable, necessary, and
in the public interest.