Parties: HHS, SSA, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Jackson, MS and
AFGE, Local 3627
     ID:  48 FLRA 607  /  48 FLRA No. 60  /  48:607(60)AR
   Date: September 30, 1993
   Type: AR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator: Bahakel
 CaseNo: O-AR-2438
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Arbitrator denied the grievance of an employee who
challenged her performance rating on a particular job element.
The Authority concluded that the Union's exceptions provided no
basis for finding the award deficient.
    The Authority construed the Union's arguments that the
Arbitrator "disregarded" the "explicit terms of the contract" as
an assertion that the award did not draw its essence from the
agreement.  However, the Authority found that the Union had not
shown that the award failed to draw its essence from the
agreement.  The Authority also rejected the Union's contention
that the Arbitrator was biased.
*******************************************************
Parties: Dept. of the Navy, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach,
CA and Federal Employees Metal Trades Council
     ID:  48 FLRA 612  /  48 FLRA No. 61  /  48:612(61)AR
   Date: September 30, 1993
   Type: AR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator: Steinberg
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2428
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Arbitrator denied a grievance alleging that the Agency's
administration of its merit promotion program contravened Federal
laws, rules, and regulations and the parties' collective
bargaining agreement.  The Arbitrator found that the matter was
not arbitrable under the parties' agreement.  The Authority
concluded that the Union's exceptions provided no basis for
finding the award deficient.
    As to the first exception, the Authority concluded that the
Union failed to establish that the award was deficient on the
ground that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority.  As to the
second exception, the Authority found nothing in the record that
demonstrated that the award was contrary to any law, rule, or
regulation.  Lastly, the Union argued that the Arbitrator's award
was contrary to sound public policy because it allowed management
to continue to ignore pertinent laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to promotions and personnel practices.  The Authority
concluded that the Union failed to demonstrate how the award
contravened public policy.
*******************************************************
Parties: Dept. of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, Chicago, IL and
AFGE
     ID:  48 FLRA 620  /  48 FLRA No. 62  /  48:620(62)RO
   Date: October 1993
   Type: RO    Volume: 48    Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: CH-RO-20043
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Activity sought review of the Regional Director's (RD's)
Decision and Order and Direction of Election, directing an
election in a unit of all non-professional, General Schedule
employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Office
of the Chief Immigration Judge, Chicago, Illinois.  The Authority
denied the application for review after concluding that there were
no compelling reasons within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations for granting the application
for review.
    The Authority found that the RD's conclusion, that the
non-professional employees of the Executive Office of  Immigration
Review, Office of the Chief  Immigration Judge, Chicago field
office constituted an appropriate unit within the meaning of the
Statute, was supported by the record and consistent with Authority
precedent.  The Authority found that the issue of whether the
Management Officer was a supervisor was not presented to the RD,
and that the issue was raised for the first time in the
application for review.  The Authority held, therefore, that it
would not consider such argument  The Authority noted that an
application for review may not raise any issue or allege any facts
not timely presented to the Regional Director.
    The Authority also found that the RD did not make errors on
substantial factual issues
and that it did not depart from Authority precedent.  The
Authority also concluded that the RD did not misapply precedent in
concluding that the proposed unit would promote effective dealings
with, and efficient operations of, the Activity.
*******************************************************
Parties: National Association of Agriculture Employees and Dept.
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant
Protection and Quarantine
     ID:  48 FLRA 639  /  48 FLRA No. 63  /  48:639(63)NG
   Date: October 7, 1993
   Type: NG    Volume: 48    Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: 0-NG-2143
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    This case concerned the negotiability of one proposal relating
to overtime entitlement.  The Authority found that the proposal
was nonnegotiable.  The Authority concluded that requiring the
Agency to pay employees overtime compensation for 8 hours of
Sunday overtime in circumstances where they did not actually
performed 8 hours' work was inconsistent with 7 U.S.C.  2260.
********************************************************
Parties: AFGE, Local 4042 and DOD, Army and Air Force Exchange
Service, Waco Distribution Center, Waco, Texas
     ID:  48 FLRA 646  /  48 FLRA No. 64  /  48:646(64)AR
   Date: October 8, 1993.
   Type: AR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator: Allen, Jr.
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2448
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Arbitrator denied a grievance alleging that the Agency
improperly refused to negotiate a local supplemental agreement
with the Union.  The Authority concluded that the Union's
exceptions failed to establish that the award was deficient.
    The Authority rejected the Union's contention that the award
was deficient insofar as the Arbitrator held that the grievance
was untimely filed.  The Authority noted that the Union's
exceptions constituted disagreement with the Arbitrator's
conclusion that the grievance was untimely filed under the
relevant provision of the parties' collective bargaining
agreement.
*******************************************************
Parties: Dept. of the Air Force, 90th Missile Wing (SAC), F.E.
Warren AFB, Cheyenne, WY and AFGE, Local 2354
     ID:  48 FLRA 650  /  48 FLRA No. 65  /  48:650(65)CU
   Date: OCTOBER 8, 1993
   Type: CU    Volume: 48    Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: DE-CU-20016
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The petition before the Regional Director (RD), sought to
clarify the bargaining unit for which the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 2354 (AFGE) was the exclusive
representative to exclude employees classified as flexible
employees.  The RD clarified the unit to include the flexible
employees.  The Authority found, however, that the Activity did
not establish any basis for review of the RD's Decision and Order.
    The Authority noted that the Activity had not shown that a
substantial question of law or policy had been raised by the RD's
decision because of a departure from Authority precedent, and had
not shown that the RD's decision on any substantial factual issue
was clearly erroneous and that such error prejudicially affected
the rights of the Activity.  Accordingly, the Authority denied the
application for review.
*******************************************************
Parties: National Border Patrol Council, Local 2913 and Dept. of
Justice, INS Border Patrol
     ID:  48 FLRA 657  /  48 FLRA No. 66  /  48:657(66)AR
   Date: October 8, 1993
   Type: AR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator: Macpherson
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2493
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Union filed a grievance seeking to reverse the grievant's
5-day suspension for alleged misconduct in giving careless and
negligent testimony in a proceeding in Federal court.  The
Arbitrator sustained the grievance and ordered the Agency to
rescind the grievant's suspension, restore his salary and
benefits, and remove materials relating to his suspension from his
personnel file.  Additionally, the Arbitrator denied the Union's
request that the backpay include interest.
    The Authority concluded that the portion of the award denying
interest on the backpay was deficient because it was contrary to
law.  The Authority modified the award to provide for the payment
of interest on the backpay award.  The Authority noted that under
the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C.  5596(b), as amended, an employee who
is found to have been subjected to an unwarranted personnel action
that has resulted in a withdrawal or reduction in compensation is
entitled to interest on any backpay award.
*******************************************************
Parties: Dept. of Justice, FBI and AFGE, Local 3652
     ID:  48 FLRA 660  /  48 FLRA No. 67  /  48:660(67)AR
   Date: October 8, 1993
   Type: AR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator: Alexander
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2444
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Arbitrator sustained a grievance regarding the grievant's
use of sick leave, for which a 5-day suspension was imposed.  The
Authority concluded that the Agency's exceptions provided no basis
for finding the award deficient.
      The Authority concluded that the Agency failed to support
the contention that the award did not draw its essence from the
agreement.  The Authority also rejected the Agency's assertions
that the Arbitrator was limited to determining the reasonableness
of the penalty and that the case should be remanded to enable the
Arbitrator to decide whether the grievant was obligated to call in
on July 8.
*******************************************************
Parties: DOI, Redwood National Park, Crescent City, CA and Thomas
R. Dore and NFFE, Local 2091
     ID:  48 FLRA 666  /  48 FLRA No. 68  /  48:666(68)DR
   Date: October 12, 1993
   Type: DR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: SF-DR-30039
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
      The Regional Director (RD) found that the current collective
bargaining agreement between the Activity and the Incumbent did
not contain clear and unambiguous language setting forth the
effective date of the agreement so as to constitute a bar to the
processing of a representation petition.  Therefore, the RD found
that the petition filed by the Petitioner was timely filed and he
directed an election among employees in the unit.
    The Incumbent sought review of the RD's decision.  The
Authority concluded that there were no compelling reasons within
the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations for granting the application for review.
*******************************************************
Parties: Dept. of the Army, Camp Stanley Storage Activity, San
Antonio, TX and AFGE, Local 3961
     ID:  48 FLRA 672  /  48 FLRA No. 69  /  48:672(69)AR
   Date: October 14, 1993
   Type: AR    Volume: 48    Arbitrator: Dunham
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2425
                       ========== Synopsis ==========
    The Arbitrator sustained a grievance contesting the grievant's
performance appraisal rating.  The Arbitrator found that the
Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by
improperly evaluating the grievant's performance.  The Arbitrator
directed the Agency to raise the performance appraisal rating to
exceptional.
    The Authority concluded that the Agency's exceptions provided
no basis for finding the award deficient.  The Authority noted
that the award satisfied the two-prong test governing the remedial
authority of arbitrators in performance appraisal matters that had
been established in 30 FLRA 1156