27:0038(9)AR - Ass't Secretary for Health, Public Health Service, and Local 41, AFGE -- 1987 FLRAdec AR
[ v27 p38 ]
27:0038(9)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
27 FLRA No. 9
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR HEALTH, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE
Agency
and
LOCAL 41, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Union
Case No. 0-AR-1294
DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator James P. Whyte filed by the Union 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
The grievance alleged that in the course of abolishing the grievant's
GS-15 position and assigning him to a GS-14 position, the Agency
violated reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations; denied him statutory
retention rights; and reneged on a promise to approve a request to
detail him to a United Nations agency for two years.
The Arbitrator rejected the allegations. The Arbitrator essentially
found that: the RIF was justified; the grievant was not singled out
for discriminatory treatment; the Agency properly applied RIF
regulations in effect when the grievant's position was abolished; the
Union failed to establish that the grievant was deprived of any
retention rights; and the Agency did not act arbitrarily, capriciously
or unreasonably in determining that the grievant was not qualified for
certain GS-15 positions. Finally, the Arbitrator found that the Union
failed to establish that the Agency was required to detail the grievant
to an international organization as a reasonable accomodation for an
asserted handicapping condition caused by work-related stress. The
Arbitrator determined that a preference for work in an international
organization does not require detail to that organization.
Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.
III. Exceptions
In its exceptions, the Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is
inconsistent with various laws and regulations concerning accomodations
for handicapping conditions, RIFs, details to international
organizations and performance evaluation.
IV. Decision
We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
section 7122(a) of the Statute, that is, that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other
grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector
labor-management relations. See, for example, U.S. Department of Labor
and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12, 17 FLRA 952
(1985) (exceptions attempting to relitigate the merits of a case before
the Authority and constituting nothing more than disagreement with an
arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions provide no
basis for finding the award deficient). See also American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 12 and U.S. Department of Labor, 24 FLRA No.
19 (1986), slip op. at 5 (where the Authority noted a Federal court
decision, Carty v. Carlin, 623 F.Supp. 1181, 1188-89 (D. Md. 1985),
holding that reasonable accomodation of a qualified handicapped employee
does not require the transfer or reassignment of the employee to another
position).
Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C. May 14, 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