27:0044(11)AR - VA, Winston-Salem, NC and AFGE Local 2880 -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v27 p44 ]
27:0044(11)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
27 FLRA No. 11
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C.
Activity
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2880
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1269
DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Lloyd L. Byars 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.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration in this case
disputing the nonselection of the grievant for promotion to a GS-7
claims examiner position. The Arbitrator found "convincing evident or
irregularities, omissions, and commissions in the selection process
which indicate a reliance on non-job-related criteria as a basis for the
nonselection of the grievant and which resulted in discrimination
against the grievant for non-merit reasons" in violation of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement. However, the Arbitrator concluded that
it was impossible to determine that "the Grievant would have been
promoted but for the improper selction procedures of the selecting
official." Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that "a remedy of
anything less than a retroactive promotion for the Grievant" would be
"inadequate." Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator directed that
the grievant be promoted to the claims examiner position retroactively
with backpay. The Arbitrator also awarded the grievant reasonable
attorney fees.
III. First Exception
A. Contentions
The Agency contends that the award is deficient because the
Arbitrator was biased against management and in favor of the grievant.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
This exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient and
is denied. The exception is totally devoid of any substantiation that
the Arbitrator's award was procured by improper means; that there was
partiality or corruption on the part of the Arbitrator; or that the
Arbitrator was guilty of misconduct by which the rights of any party
were prejudiced. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District and
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local No. 1124, 13 FLRA 70
(1983); Department of the Army, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division
(Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2022, 7 FLRA 18 (1981).
IV. Second Exception
A. Contentions
The Agency contends that the Arbitrator's award of a retroactive
promotion, backpay, and attorney fees is contrary to the specific
requirements of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. section 5596. The Union
concedes that under applicable authority the Arbitrator failed to
adequately justify his award. However, the Union requests that the
award be remanded for clarification and reevaluation of the relief
awarded in this matter.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
We conclude that the award of a retroactive promotion, backpay, and
attorney fees is deficient as contrary to the Back Pay Act. In order
for an award of backpay to be authorized under the Back Pay Act, the
Arbitrator must find that an agency personnel action was unjustified or
unwarranted, that such personnel action directly resulted in the
withdrawal or reduction of the aggrieved employee's pay, allowances, or
differentials and that but for such action, the grievant would not have
suffered such a withdrawal or reduction. For example, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office and Patent Office Professional
Association, 21 FLRA No. 52 (1986). In this case the Arbitrator did not
make the findings necessary for a proper award of backpay. The
Arbitrator specifically concluded that it was impossible to determine
that the grievant would have been promoted but for the improper
selection procedures. Accordingly, the award of a retroactive promotion
and backpay is deficient and must be set aside. /*/ With the award of
backpay found deficient, and apart from other considerations, the
Arbitrator's award of attorney fees is also deficient and must be set
aside. U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama and Local
1858, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 18 FLRA 374
(1985).
We also deny the Union's request for a remand. When an award of
retroactive promotion and backpay is found deficient under the Back Pay
Act, the award is set aside and not remanded for clarification or
reevaluation. See National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and
Federal Aviation Administration, Washington Flight Service Service
Station, 21 FLRA No. 26 (1986), slip op. at 5. At the same time,
however, the Authority has indicated in similar circumstances that the
parties are not precluded from agreeing on an appropriate remedy (as to
appropriate remedies, see, for example, Local R4-97, National
Association of Government Employees and Naval Mine Engineering Facility,
Yorktown, Virginia, 5 FLRA 452, 456 and n.6 (1981) (priority
consideration under a new promotion or other placement action); Local
R1-185, National Association of Government Employees and Adjutant
General of the State of Connecticut, 25 FLRA No 36 (1987)
(reconstruction or rerunning of the selection action)). Alternatively,
the parties could agree to resubmit the issue of an appropriate remedy
to the Arbitrator or the Union could refer such matter to arbitration.
See Veterans Administration Medical Center, Newington, Connecticut and
National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-109, 19 FLRA 535
(1985); U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
2814, AFL-CIO, 14 FLRA 240 (1984).
V. Decision
For these reasons, the award is modified to strike the award of
retroactive promotion, backpay, and attorney fees.
Issued, Washington, D.C., May 20, 1987
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(*) In view of this decision, it is not necessary to address the
Agency's other exception to the award.