26:0398(49)AR - Army Engineer District, St. Louis and AFGE Local No. 3838 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v26 p398 ]
26:0398(49)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
26 FLRA No. 49
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,
ST. LOUIS
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 3838
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1247
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator James M. O'Reilly filed by the Department of the Army (the
Agency) 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
A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration contending that
management's determination to contract out the operation and maintenance
functions at four sewage treatment plants violated applicable
procurement law and OMB Circular A-76. The Arbitrator first ruled that
the grievance was grievable and arbitrable. On the merits, the
Arbitrator found that the Activity had contracted out solely to avoid
personnel ceilings. Specifically, he found that the Activity had had
contracted out in order to abolish six positions and had subjected the
incumbents of those positions to a reduction-in-force (RIF). Noting
that OMB Circular A-76 and its Supplement specifically prohibit
contracting out solely to avoid personnel ceilings, the Arbitrator
accordingly ruled that the Activity had failed to comply with the
Circular in its determination to contract out, and he sustained the
grievance. However, he expressly sustained the grievance only to the
extent of the six employees whose positions had been abolished because
he found that they were the only employees specifically affected by the
Activity's failure to comply with the Circular. As a remedy, the
Arbitrator in paragraph 1.B. of the award ordered the procurement action
cancelled and the six employees restored to their former positions.
III. FIRST EXCEPTIONS
A. Contentions
The Agency contends that by finding the grievance to be arbitrable,
the award is deficient as contrary to law and regulation.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
This exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. We
have consistently held that a grievance like the one in this case is
within the grievance procedure prescribed by the Statute and is not
precluded by law or regulation. For example, American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1513 and Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island,
26 FLRA No. 36 (1987). Accordingly, this exception is denied.
IV. SECOND EXCEPTION
A. Contentions
The Agency contends that under Headquarters, 97th Combat Support
Group (SAC), Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas and American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2840, 22 FLRA No. 72
(1986), the Arbitrator's award ordering cancellation of the procurement
action and restoring the six employees to their former positions is
contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The Agency also
argues that under Blytheville AFB, there is no basis for ordering the
procurement action reconstructed.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
We agree with the Agency that the award ordering the cancellation of
the procurement action and restoring the six employees to their former
positions is deficient. We expressly held in Blytheville AFB that under
the Statute and procurement law and regulation, arbitrators are not
authorized to cancel a procurement action. Slip op. at 6. Thus, the
Arbitrator's order that the Activity cease contracting out the sewage
treatment functions is clearly deficient. The award directing the
Activity to restore the six employees affected by the procurement action
to their former positions is also deficient because it follows directly
from the cancellation. For example, United States Army Communications
Command, Fort McClellen and Local No. 1941, American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 23 FLRA No. 23 (1986), slip op. at 4.
However, we disagree with the Agency that there is no basis to order
the procurement action reconstructed.
We decided in Blytheville AFB that an arbitrator can sustain a
challenge to a procurement action only on the basis that the agency
failed to comply with mandatory and nondiscretionary provisions of
applicable procurement law or regulation. We also decided that in
sustaining the grievance, the arbitrator as a remedy may properly order
a reconstruction of the procurement action when the arbitrator finds
that an agency's noncompliance materially affected the final procurement
decision and harmed unit employees. Applying that test in this case, we
conclude, contrary to the argument of the Agency, that the Arbitrator's
award establishes a sufficient basis for directing the Activity to
reconstruct the procurement action. The Arbitrator specifically found
that contrary to the express prohibition of OMB Circular A-76, the
Activity contracted out solely to avoid personnel ceilings. He also
expressly found that six employees were specifically affected by this
defective procurement action in that they were subjected to a RIF and
displaced from their positions. In these circumstances, we conclude, as
we concluded under similar circumstances in Blytheville AFB, slip op. at
7, that the Arbitrator effectively found that the Activity's violation
harmed the employees involved and that the violation materially affected
the Activity's final procurement decision. Accordingly, we will order
reconstruction in accordance with the guidance provided in Blytheville
AFB. Slip op. at 7.
V. DECISION
The Arbitrator's award is modified to substitute the following for
paragraph 1.B. of the award:
The Activity is directed to reconstruct the disputed
procurement action in accordance with the requirements of OMB
Circular A-76 and to take appropriate action in accordance with
the decisions of the Authority based upon the results of such
reconstruction.
Issued, Washington, D.C., March 27, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY