44:0247(21)AR - - AFGE, Local 916 and Air Force, OK City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, OK - - 1992 FLRAdec AR - - v44 p247

[ v44 p247 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

44 FLRA No. 21













March 3, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Robert L. Taylor 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 did not file an opposition to the exceptions.

A grievance was filed alleging, among other things, that the grievant was not properly reassigned as the result of a reduction-in-force (RIF). The Arbitrator sustained the grievance. For the following reasons, we will remand the case to the parties for further processing consistent with our decision.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

As part of a RIF, the grievant was "bumped" from her position as a WG-8 testing equipment operator in "Engines." Award at 2. The grievant was detailed, as were other employees in Engines, to a position as an aircraft mechanic "in advance of the RIF action[.]" Id. at 8. The grievant received training as an aircraft mechanic. After that training, the grievant was permanently assigned to a WG-8 sheet metal worker position.

The grievant filed a grievance alleging, in part, that the Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement and the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) by failing to permanently assign her to an aircraft mechanic position. An aircraft mechanic position, unlike a sheet metal worker position, has potential for noncompetitive promotion to WG-10. As a remedy, the grievant sought assignment to an aircraft mechanic position as a WG-10.

The Arbitrator found that there were three employees who, like the grievant, were WG-8 employees in Engines prior to the RIF and who were trained as aircraft mechanics. The Arbitrator also found that, although the grievant was senior to these employees, they were "assigned for duty as Aircraft Mechanics, WG-8, Step 5, after their training[.]" Id. at 15.

The Arbitrator further concluded that:

Accepting Agency's assertions that there were no vacancies as Aircraft Mechanics, WG-8, there is no question but that there were vacancies as WG-5's because Management assigned at least three displaced employees from her section assigned to the same position as she, all being WG-8's, as WG-8's, Level 5, all of whom were less senior than Grievant. At least 2 of them have now been promoted to WG-8.

I find that Grievant could have been, and should have been, assigned as an Aircraft WG-8, Level 5.

I can not promote Grievant to the position of Aircraft Mechanic, 8852-10, because it would be speculative for me to say that she would now have been promoted to WG-8, much less WG-10.

Id. at 16. The Arbitrator awarded the grievant a position as an Aircraft Mechanic at "WG-8, Level 5." Id. at 17.

III. The Agency's Exceptions

The Agency contends that the award is: (1) inconsistent with Air Force Regulation (AFR) 40-351 and FPM Supplement 351-1; and (2) ambiguous and contradictory.

The Agency asserts that, under the Air Force Regulation(1) and the FPM Supplement,(2) an employee such as the grievant is entitled to assignment to the highest-graded position for which the employee is qualified. According to the Agency, it was required to assign the grievant to the WG-8 sheet metal worker position because, at the time of the reassignment, the only aircraft mechanic positions available were at the WG-5 level. The Agency notes that, under subchapter S5-3(c) of the FPM Supplement, the fact that aircraft mechanic positions offer greater promotion potential than sheet metal worker positions is irrelevant to determining the grievant's assignment rights.

The Agency also asserts that the award is "ambiguous and contradictory . . . ." Id. at 8. The Agency argues that the Arbitrator confused the difference between grades and steps of positions and that it is difficult to determine "exactly what position and at what grade and step he believed the grievant should be placed in." Id. at 6.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

At the outset, we note three things. First, it is undisputed that, under FPM Supplement 351-1, subchapter S5-3, the grievant was entitled at the time of her reassignment to the position with the highest representative rate for which she was qualified. Second, it also is undisputed that, under the FPM Supplement, the promotion potential of a position is irrelevant in determining its representative rate. Third, although the exact rates are not in the record before us, it is reasonable to assume, and we do assume, that the representative rate of a WG-8 position is higher than the representative rate of a WG-5 position. See FPM Supplement 351-1, subchapter S5-7(e)(2).

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that, as a WG-8 sheet metal worker position was available at the time of the grievant's reassignment, she could not be assigned to an aircraft mechanic position at a level lower than WG-8. Put simply, as a WG-8 position was available and the grievant was assigned to it, the grievant may not now properly be assigned to a WG-5 aircraft mechanic position, whatever the promotion potential of that position may be. As such, if the Arbitrator awarded the grievant a WG-5 aircraft mechanic position, the award is inconsistent with FPM Supplement 351-1, subchapter S5-3. FPM Supplement 351-1, subchapter S5-3 is a Government-wide regulation within the meaning of section 7117 of the Statute because it generally applies throughout the Federal sector. See, for example, Overseas Education Association Inc. and Departme