14:0240(44)AR - Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration and AFGE Local 2814 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR
[ v14 p240 ]
14:0240(44)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
14 FLRA No. 44
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Agency
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2814, AFL-CIO
Union
Case No. O-AR-356
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator Frederick U. Reel 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 dispute in this matter concerns the filling of a GS-12 railroad
safety inspector position in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Agency posted
the position vacancy and specified that requests for change to lower
grade would be accepted, but that such requests would not be deemed
essential to the Agency's mission and moving expenses consequently would
not be paid by the Agency. No applicants applied for the position and
the posting was removed. Thereafter, the Agency filled the position by
reassignment of an employee who requested a change to lower grade from
his position to the safety inspector position, and the Agency paid his
moving expenses. A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration
protesting the payment of the employee's moving expenses.
The Arbitrator determined that the Agency had violated the parties'
collective bargaining agreement and applicable travel regulations by
paying the employee's moving expenses, and accordingly he sustained the
grievance. However, the Arbitrator expressly acknowledged that the
question of an appropriate remedy was exceedingly difficult.
Consequently, he outlined three alternative remedies and directed the
Agency to remedy the violation by selecting one of the alternatives.
The first remedy outlined is to restore the status quo ante by vacating
the safety inspector position and returning the incumbent employee to
his original position and by reposting the safety inspector position
vacancy under the original terms. The second remedy is to repost the
vacancy with moving expenses to be paid and with the incumbent employee
retained in the position. The third remedy outlined by the Arbitrator
is for the Agency to provide as part of the next posting of a vacancy in
a safety inspector position that moving expenses will be paid.
In its exception the Agency contends that the award is deficient
because all three remedies are in some respect contrary to law, rule, or
regulation. The Authority agrees.
Governing law and regulation clearly prescribe that in order for the
payment of travel and transportation expenses of a transferred employee
to be authorized from Government funds, the transfer must be in the
interest of the Government and must not be primarily for the convenience
or benefit of the employee or at the employee's request. 5 U.S.C. 5724;
Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR), section 101-7.003;
GSA Bulletin FPMR A-40, chapter 2, paragraph 2-1.3 (commonly known as
Federal Travel Regulations). Consequently, the third remedy outlined by
the Arbitrator is deficient in its entirety because it orders that a
provision for the payment of moving expenses from Government funds must
be included as part of the posting for the next vacancy in a safety
inspector position without regard to whether such payment would be
authorized by controlling law and regulation. Therefore, this remedy
may not be implemented. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
1332 and United States Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command
Headquarters, 7 FLRA No. 95(1982). The second remedy is likewise
contrary to such law and regulation to the extent that it orders that a
provision for the payment of moving expenses must be included as part of
the reposting of the safety inspector position vacancy. With respect to
the first remedy outlined by the Arbitrator, the Authority has uniformly
held that the incumbent employee in these cases is entitled pursuant to
Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) chapter 335, appendix A, section A-4b to
be retained in the position unless it is specifically determined that
the selection action cannot be corrected to conform essentially to all
applicable requirements as of the date the action was taken. Defense
Contract Administration Services Management Area (DCASMA), Cedar Rapids,
Iowa and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2752,
AFL-CIO, 10 FLRA No. 94(1982); The Adjutant General, State of Oklahoma,
Air National Guard and American Federation of Government Employees, Will
Rogers Air National Guard Local 3953, 8 FLRA No. 23(1982). Because the
Arbitrator essentially determined that the selection action could be
appropriately corrected, the first remedy to the extent that it orders
the position vacated in advance of corrective action is deficient as
contrary to FPM chapter 335, appendix A, section A-4b. See DCASMA, at
2; The Adjutant General, State of Oklahoma, at 3.
Accordingly, and in view of the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency
violated the agreement and applicable regulations by its actions in this
case, the award is modified as follows: /1/
The grievance is sustained, and the Agency is directed to
remedy its violation by a means which is consistent with
applicable law and regulation, and the parties' collective
bargaining agreement. /2/
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Agency also contends that the award is contrary to section
7106(a) of the Statute and the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596. However,
there is no basis for finding the award, as modified by the Authority,
deficient. See U.S. Department of Justice, Medical Center For Federal
Prisoners and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1612,
11 FLRA No. 15(1983), at 3 n.3; The Adjutant General, State of
Oklahoma, 8 FLRA No. 23, at 3 n.; American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 41 and Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of the Secretary, Headquarters, 8 FLRA No. 18(1982), at
2 n.
/2/ The Authority has modified the award in this manner because all
the remedies suggested in the alternative by the Arbitrator have been
found in some respect deficient. However, if the matter of an
appropriate remedy cannot be resolved, the parties may resubmit that
matter to the Arbitrator or may refer such matter to arbitration.