25:0725(59)AR - Health Care Financing Administration and AFGE Local 1923 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v25 p725 ]
25:0725(59)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
25 FLRA No. 59
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION
Agency
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923
Union
Case No. O-AR-1211
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator Ira F. Jaffe filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union filed an
opposition. /*/
II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
Grievances were filed and submitted to arbitration protesting the
1985 performance appraisals of the grievants, two secretaries, and
seeking that the overall ratings of "excellent" be raised to
"outstanding," the highest level of performance. The Arbitrator
determined that in several respects the grievants' appraisals were not
in accordance with the established performance standards, the grievants'
job performance plans, and the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
Consequently, the Arbitrator sustained the grievances and as his award
directed the Agency "to change the Grievants' 1985 performance
evaluations to reflect level 4 performance on each of the four job
elements and to reflect an overall rating of 'outstanding.'"
III. EXCEPTION
The Agency contends that the award is contrary to section
7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. Specifically, the Agency asserts
that the Arbitrator substituted his own assessment of the grievants' job
performance and his own evaluation of the grievants' performance ratings
for those of management.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
In recent decisions we have discussed the role of an arbitrator in
resolving disputes pertaining to performance appraisal matters. Social
Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees,
Local Union 1923, 25 FLRA No. 37 (1987); Federal Prison System, U.S.
Medical Center for Federal Prisoners and American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1612, 23 FLRA No. 53 (1986); Mare Island
Naval Shipyard and International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers, Local 11, AFL-CIO-CLC, 23 FLRA No. 32 (1986);
Veterans Administration Hospital, Bath, New York and American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 491, 22 FLRA No. 103 (1986). We found
that an arbitrator may resolve grievances over whether an employee was
adversely affected in his or her performance appraisal by management's
application of the established performance standards. An arbitrator may
sustain the grievance on finding that management had not applied the
standards which it established to the grievant or had applied the
standards in violation of law, regulation, or an appropriate provision
of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. In sustaining the
grievance, the arbitrator may direct that the grievant's work product be
properly evaluated. An arbitrator may not, however, substitute his or
her own judgment for that of management in the exercise of the rights
under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) to direct employees and assign work
as such rights pertain to matters of performance appraisal. In
particular, an arbitrator may not substitute his or her own judgment for
that of management as to what the grievant's evaluation and rating
should be.
Applying these principles to this case, we conclude in agreement with
the Agency that the Arbitrator improperly substituted his own judgment
for that of managemnet in the exercise of the rights under section
7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) to direct employees and assign work. In directing
that the grievants' overall ratings be raised to "outstanding," the
Arbitrator did not merely grant the grievants' work products as
appraised by management the ratings to which they are entitled under the
established standards. Instead, the Arbitrator rejected management's
appraisals. The Arbitrator conducted an independent evaluation of the
grievants' performance under the elements and standards established by
management and substituted his judgment for that of management as to
what the grievants' evaluations and ratings should have been.
V. DECISION
For these reasons, we find the Arbitrator's direction that the Agency
change the grievants' performance evaluations to reflect level 4
performance on all elements and an overall rating of "outstanding" is
contrary to section 7106(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, the award is
modified to provide, as follows.
The grievances are sustained. The Agency is directed to
reevaluate the grievants' performances in accordance with the
established performance standards and the parties' collective
bargaining agreement for the appraisal period in dispute.
Issued, Washington, D.C., February 13, 1987.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(*) As part of its opposition, the Union contends that the Agency's
exception should be dismissed because under the parties' collective
bargaining agreement, exceptions assertedly cannot be filed to
arbitration awards, such as the award in this case, issued under the
expedited arbitration procedures. However, we have previously rejected
this argument, and we confirm that this matter is properly before us for
decision. Social Security Administration and American Federation of
Government Employees, Local Union 1923, 25 FLRA No. 37 (1987); Social
Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 1923, 22 FLRA No. 66 (1986); Social Security Administration and
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 16 FLRA 552
(1984).