National Air Traffic Controllers Association (Union) and United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas (Agency)

MEMORANDUM

64 FLRA No. 173                                                     

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

 NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION

 (Union)

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

(Agency)

0-AR-4420

_____

DECISION

June 23, 2010

_____

Before the Authority:  Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and

Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members

I.          Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Joe D. Woodward filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.  The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union’s exceptions.

            The Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance and awarded the grievant backpay.  The Arbitrator, however, declined to award interest.  For the reasons that follow, we grant the Union’s exceptions and modify the award to include interest consistent with the requirements of the Back Pay Act.

II.        Background and Arbitrator’s Award

            The grievant, an aeronautical engineer, was assigned to travel to and investigate an airplane crash in a rural area of Texas.  See Award at 1.  The grievant requested hazardous duty pay for this assignment.  See id. at 2-3.  His supervisor, not believing that the grievant had been exposed to a dangerous or hazardous area, denied the request.  See id. at 3.  The Union filed a grievance, which, after proceeding through the grievance procedure, was submitted to arbitration.  See id.  The sole issue, as framed by the Arbitrator, was whether “the Agency violate[d] the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it refused hazardous duty pay to the [g]rievant . . . and if so what shall the remedy be?”  Id.

            The Arbitrator determined that the grievant was entitled to hazardous duty pay.  See id. at 8-9.  The Arbitrator, however, declined to award interest.  See id. at 9.  The Arbitrator noted, in this regard, that