Parties: NFFE Local 1214 and HQ, Army Training Center and
Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC

 ID: 51 FLRA 1362 / 51 FLRA No. 110 / 51:1362(110)NG
 Date: June 14, 1996
 Type: NG Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: 0-NG-2216

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The Authority found that the provision, which required
that disciplinary and adverse actions be based on just cause
and be consistently applied, was negotiable as an
appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) of the
Statute.

 The Authority noted that provisions which restrict the
range of management action pursuant to a right under section
7106 of the Statute constitute limitations on the exercise
of that right and for that reason have been held to directly
interfere with the exercise of that right. The Authority
also noted that restrictions on an agency s ability to
choose the specific penalty that it will impose in a
disciplinary action directly interfere with management s
right to discipline employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A).

 However, the Authority held that the provision was an
appropriate arrangement because it merely required that the
Agency apply discipline equitably and based on just
cause. The Authority noted that although the provision
required that the Agency consistently apply discipline in
an equitable manner, it was silent with regard to specific
penalties or to a progressive system for determining
disciplinary actions. Thus, the provision allowed the
Agency to retain the ultimate right to determine which
employees would be disciplined and what discipline would be
imposed. Accordingly, the Authority found that the
provision did not excessively interfere with management s
right to discipline and concluded that it was negotiable as
an appropriate arrangement within the meaning of section
7106(b)(3) of the Statute.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: DOD, Army and Air Force Exchange Service and AFGE [
Worldwide Consolidated Bargaining Unit ]

 ID: 51 FLRA 1371 / 51 FLRA No. 111 / 51:1371(111)AR
 Date: June 14, 1996
 Type: AR Volume: 51 Arbitrator: Goodstein
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2590

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The Arbitrator sustained a grievance concerning the use
of official time by employees acting as Union
representatives. The Authority concluded that the Agency
failed to establish that the award was deficient under
section 7122(a) of the Statute.

 The Authority found that the portion of the award
concerning union representatives use of agency telephones
for representational purposes was not contrary to sections
7106(a)(2)(A) and (B), 7131(d), or 7101 of the Statute. The
Authority found that the award concerned matters pertaining
to the amount of official time under section 7131(d). The
Authority noted that the Agency had not asserted or
demonstrated the existence of an emergency or other special
circumstances. Consequently, the award did not
impermissibly affect management s rights under section
7106(a)(2)(A) and (B).

 The Authority also found that the award was consistent
with section 7101 of the Statute. The Authority noted that
the official time provisions of the parties' agreement, as
interpreted by the Arbitrator, further the public interest
and contribute to effective Government by enhancing the
ability of Union representatives to participate in
representational activities that promote the resolution of
disputes and effective labor-management relations. Thus,
the Authority denied this exception.

 The Authority rejected the Agency s contention that the
award failed to draw its essence from the agreement.
Rather, the Authority found that the Arbitrator s
interpretation was not irational, unreasonable, or
implausible, and that the Agency s exception constituted
nothing more than disagreement with the Arbitrator's
interpretation of the master agreement. The Authority
further rejected the Agency's reliance on previous
arbitration awards to support its contention that the award
failed to draw its essence from the master agreement. The
Authority noted that it does not find arbitration awards
deficient on the basis that they conflict with previous
arbitration awards.

 The Authority concluded that the arbitrator did not
exceed his authority. The Authority noted that an
arbitrator exceeds his or her authority when the arbitrator
fails to resolve an issue submitted to arbitration, resolves
an issue not submitted to arbitration, disregards specific
limitations on his or her authority, or awards relief to
persons who are not encompassed within the grievance. The
Authority further explained that when parties do not
stipulate the issue, an arbitrator does not exceed his or
her authority when the arbitrator formulates and decides
the issue. In this case, the parties did not agree on the
issues to be arbitrated. Thus, the Arbitrator formulated
the issues. The Authority found that the Arbitrator's
remedy was responsive to the issues that he formulated and,
as such, the award was not deficient.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: FAA, Washington, DC and National Air Traffic
Controllers Association // [ Dept. of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration ]

 ID: 51 FLRA 1385 / 51 FLRA No. 112 / 51:1385(112)AR
 Date: June 20, 1996
 Type: AR Volume: 51 Arbitrator: xxx
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2671

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The Arbitrator sustained a grievance over the Agency s
refusal to pay Sunday premium pay to employees who take
credit hours or compensatory time on a regularly scheduled
Sunday shift. The Authority concluded that the award was
contrary to law and, therefore, deficient under section
7122(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, it was set aside.

 The Authority noted that the statutory basis for Sunday
premium pay for ATCSs is 5 U.S.C.  5546(a). Section
5546(a) states that an employee who performs work during
part of a regular shift on a Sunday is entitled to receive
Sunday premium pay for the entire shift. Employees using
credit/comp time are not performing work and, based solely
on the language of section 5546(a), are not entitled to
receive Sunday premium pay when they use credit/comp time.

 The Authority found that there was no authority for
payment of Sunday premium pay in the circumstances of this
case. Therefore, the Arbitrator s award was inconsistent
with section 5546(a) and is deficient as contrary to law
under section 7122(a).

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: IRS, Washington, DC and IRS, Oklahoma City
District, Oklahoma City, OK and NTEU // [ Dept. of the
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service ]

 ID: 51 FLRA 1391 / 51 FLRA No. 113 / 51:1391(113)CA
 Date: June 20, 1996
 Type: CA Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: 76-CA-10959

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The complaint alleged that the Respondents violated
section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by refusing
to furnish the Union with performance appraisals for certain
bargaining unit and nonbargaining unit employees requested
under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The Judge found
that the Respondents violated the Statute by failing to
furnish the requested performance appraisals, and
recommended that the Respondents be directed to furnish the
Union with the appraisals sanitized to delete the personal
identifiers of the employees involved but annotated to
indicate the gender of each employee.

 Applying the analytical framework of 50 FLRA 661 (1995),
the Authority concluded that the Union did not satisfy, in a
timely fashion, its burden of articulating and establishing,
with specificity, why it needed the information, the uses to
which the information would be put, and the connection
between those uses and the Union s representational
responsibilities under the Statute. Therefore, the
Authority concluded that the information requested was not
necessary within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the
Statute. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: Navy, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center at
Norfolk, VA and at Colts Neck, NJ and at Yorktown, VA and
AFGE Locals 53, 1659, 2298, 2510 and IAM Local Lodge 97 and
NAGE Local R4-1

 ID: 51 FLRA 1414 / 51 FLRA No. 114 / 51:1414(114)CU
 Date: June 24, 1996
 Type: CU Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: WA-CU-50062, WA-CU-50061, AT-RO-50027, BN-RO-50022,
WA-AC-50085

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 NAGE and AFGE Local 2298 sought review of the Decision
and Order of the Regional Director (RD) dismissing their
petitions concerning the bargaining unit status of two
groups of employees following a reorganization. The RD found
that the employees who were the subject of the petitions
accreted to the units sought by the petitions for unit
clarification (UC) filed by the Activity. In their
applications for review, NAGE and AFGE Local 2298 challenged
the RD s use of accretion principles in resolving the issues
presented by their petitions. In particular, AFGE Local
2298 maintained that the RD failed to apply current
Authority precedent for determining successorship, as set
forth 50 FLRA 363. In addition, the petitioners maintained
that the RD made certain factual findings that prejudicially
affected their rights under section 2422.17(c)(4). The
petitioners applications also expressed concern that the
RD s decision in this case could be affected by an October
1, 1996, reorganization of the Naval Systems Sea Command.

 The Authority concluded that there were compelling
reasons for granting the applications for review in this
case under section 2422.17(c)(1) of our Regulations because
of the absence of, or a departure from Authority precedent.
Therefore, the applications for review were granted, and the
parties were directed to file briefs. The Authority further
found that the petitioners did not demonstrate that the RD s
decision on certain factual issues was clearly erroneous or
prejudicially affected the rights of any party under section
2422.17(c)(4) of our Regulations. The Authority denied the
applications for review with regard to those matters.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: Navy, Naval Supply Center, Puget Sound, Bremerton,
WA and Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Puget Sound,
Bremerton, WA and Bremerton Metal Trades Council and AFGE
and AFGE Local 1931

 ID: 51 FLRA 1419 / 51 FLRA No. 115 / 51:1419(115)CU,
AC
 Date: June 24, 1996
 Type: CU, AC Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: SF-CU-50071 amd SF-AC-50070

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The Activity sought review of the Decision and Order of
the Regional Director (RD) granting in part and denying in
part its petition concerning the bargaining unit status of
two groups of employees following a reorganization. The RD
found that one group of affected employees, located at
Everett, Washington (Everett Detachment), accreted into the
unit sought by the petition for unit clarification (CU)
filed by the Activity. The RD concluded that a second group
of affected employees, located at Concord, California
(Concord Detachment), did not accrete into that unit because
the Activity was a successor employer. In its application
for review, the Activity challenged the RD s decision with
respect to the Concord Detachment employees as inconsistent
with Authority precedent and based on an erroneous
interpretation of certain facts.

 The Authority concluded that compelling reasons existed
for granting the application for review in this case and the
applications in FISC Norfolk under section 2422.17(c)(1) of
its Regulations because of the absence of, or a departure
from Authority precedent. Therefore, the Authority granted
the Activity s application for review. The parties were
directed to file briefs. The Authority further found that
the petitioner had not demonstrated the RD s decision on
certain factual issues was clearly erroneous or
prejudicially affected the rights of any party under section
2422.17(c)(4) of the Authority s Regulations, thus the
application for review was denied with respect to those
matters.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta, GA and
AFGE, Council of Prisons, Local 1145

 ID: 51 FLRA 1422 / 51 FLRA No. 116 / 51:1422(116)AR
 Date: June 25, 1996
 Type: AR Volume: 51 Arbitrator: Jedel
 CaseNo: 0-AR-2811

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The Arbitrator sustained, in part, a grievance, which
alleged that the grievant had performed higher-graded duties
without additional compensation. The Authority concluded
that the Arbitrator s award was deficient and was set aside.

 The Authority noted that section 7121(c)(5) of the
Statute removes from the scope of negotiated grievance
procedures, and thereby bars an arbitrator from resolving,
any grievance concerning the classification of a position
that does not result in reduction in grade or pay of an
employee. In this case, the Authority concluded that the
award did not conflict with section 7121(c)(5) of the
Statute, because the issue addressed by the arbitration did
not concern the classification of the grievant s position.

 The Authority found, however, that the award was
contrary to the Back Pay Act. The Authority noted that under
the Back Pay Act, an award of back pay is authorized only
when an arbitrator finds that: (1) the aggrieved employee
was affected by an unjust or unwarranted personnel action;
(2) the personnel action directly resulted in the withdrawal
or reduction of the grievant s pay, allowances or
differentials; and (3) but for such action, the grievant
otherwise would not have suffered the withdrawal or
reduction. The Authority further noted that the general
rule is that an employee is entitled only to the salary of
the position to which the individual is appointed. An
exception to this rule exists, which permits compensation
for the temporary performance of the duties of a higher-
graded position based on an agency regulation or collective
bargaining provision making temporary promotions mandatory
for details to higher-graded positions. This exception
establishes a nondiscretionary agency policy which provides
a basis for back pay.

 The Authority found that the Arbitrator determined that
the record established that the grievant had performed GS-12
duties. However, the Arbitrator failed to identify any
non-discretionary Agency policy set forth in an Agency
regulation or a collective bargaining agreement provision
which would have entitled the grievant to back pay for
performing the duties of a higher-graded position. As such,
there was no unjust or unwarranted personnel action which
would entitle the grievant to an award of back pay under the
Back Pay Act. In the absence of such a finding, there was
no basis to sustain an award of back pay. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator s award of back pay to the grievant was deficient
as contrary to the Back Pay Act.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: AFGE and AFGE Locals 1666 & 1931 and VA, Northern
CA System of Clinics, Pleasant Hill, CA and Dept. of
Veterans Affairs Washington, DC and Dennis C. Partlow, an
individual and Bonnie J. Greelman, an individual

 ID: 51 FLRA 1427 / 51 FLRA No. 117 / 51:1427(117)CA,
CO
 Date: June 27, 1996
 Type: CA, CO Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: SF-CA-31427, SF-CA-31428, SF-CA-31429, SF-CA-31431,
SF-CO-31242, SF-CO-31347, SF-CO-31426, SF-CO-31430

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

 The consolidated complaint alleged that the Agency
violated section 7116(a)(1), (2), (3) and (8) of the
Statute, and that the Union violated section 7116(b)(1),
(2), and (8) of the Statute, by including in their
nationwide collective bargaining agreement a provision that
interferes with employees rights to freely revoke their
dues withholding authorizations. The consolidated complaint
also alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs,
Northern California System of Clinics, Pleasant Hill,
California (the Activity) violated section 7116(a)(1), (2),
(3) and (8) of the Statute, and that Local 1666 and/or
Local 1931 violated section 7116(b)(1) and (8) of the
Statute, by failing and refusing to provide the Charging
Parties, upon their request, with copies of Standard Form
1188 ( Cancellation of Payroll Deductions for Labor
Organization Dues ) (SF 1188), and by failing and refusing
to process their dues revocation requests. The Judge
concluded that all Respondents violated the Statute as
alleged.

 The Authority found: (1) that the Agency and the Union
did not violate the Statute as alleged, and dismissed all
allegations in the consolidated complaint pertaining to
these Respondents (Case Nos. SF-CO-31426, SF-CO-31430, SF-
CA-31427 and SF-CA-31431); (2) that the Activity violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (8) by failing or refusing to
promptly furnish Charging Party Partlow with an SF 1188 dues
revocation form; (3) that Local 1931 violated section
7116(b)(1) and (8) by failing or refusing to promptly honor
both Charging Parties requests for SF 1188 s, as well as by
failing or refusing to promptly process the SF 1188
submitted by Charging Party Greelman; and (4) dismissed the
allegations that the Activity violated section 7116(a)(2)
and (3). Because it was undisputed by the parties that
Local 1666 was merged into Local 1931 on June 1, 1993, and
was no longer an active labor organization, the Authority
dismissed all allegations pertaining to it.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, UT and AFGE
Local 1592

 ID: 51 FLRA 1459 / 51 FLRA No. 118 / 51:1459(118)CA
 Date: June 28, 1996
 Type: CA Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: DE-CA-30326

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

The Authority adopted the Administrative Law Judges finding
that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1) of
the Statute by stating at a meeting attended by one of the
Union s stewards that employees who file too many or
 repeated grievances may be exhibiting one of the signs of
a troubled employee and could benefit from referral to
Respondent s Social Action office for counseling.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Parties: INS, Northern Region, Twin Cities, MN and National
Border Council, AFGE // [ Justice, Immigration and
Naturalization Service ]

 ID: 51 FLRA 1467 / 51 FLRA No. 119 / 51:1467(119)CA
 Date: June 28, 1996
 Type: CA Volume: 51 Arbitrator:
 CaseNo: 7-CA-10373

 ========== Synopsis: ==========

The Authority reiterated that in IRS, Kansas City, 50 FLRA
661, it set forth what would be its analytic approach for
determining whether and how information must be disclosed
under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. Noted, in part,
was the requirement that a union requesting information must
establish a particularized need for the information by
articulating, with specificity, why it needs the requested
information, including the uses to which the union will put
the information, and the connection between those uses and
the union s representational responsibilities under the
Statute. a union s burdens will not be satisfied merely by
showing that the requested information is or would be
relevant or useful, but that the union must demonstrate that
the information is required in order for the union
adequately to represent its members.

Applying IRS, Kansas City to the facts of the instant case,
the Authority determined that the requested disciplinary and
adverse action records were necessary, the union having
articulated and established a particularized need and the
Respondent s arguments not demonstrating that they were not
necessary. Accordingly, the Respondent violated the Statute
by refusing to disclose that information. As to the
remaining requested information, the Authority found that
the Union did not articulate and establish a particularized
need for exhibits to the Office of Inspector General Report
of Investigation mentioned in the Notice of Proposed
Removal. Accordingly, the record did not establish that
this information was necessary within the meaning of section
7114(b).