Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v35/35-003.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 18:50:16
Document Index: 707142601

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 550', 'art 550', 'art\n550', '§ 550', '§ 5545', '§ 550', 'art 550', 'art 550', '§ 550', '§ 550']

35:0014(3)AR - - VA Medical Center, Leavenworth, KS and AFGE Local 85 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p14 | FLRA
You are hereHome 35:0014(3)AR - - VA Medical Center, Leavenworth, KS and AFGE Local 85 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p14 35:0014(3)AR - - VA Medical Center, Leavenworth, KS and AFGE Local 85 - - 1990 FLRAdec AR - - v35 p14
[ v35 p14 ] 35:0014(3)AR The decision of the Authority follows: 35 FLRA No. 3 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS
(Activity) and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 85 (Union) 0-AR-1621 DECISION March 7, 1990 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
award of Arbitrator Solbert M. Wasserstrom filed by the Union under section
file an opposition to the Union's exceptions.(*) The Arbitrator ruled that the grievant, a General
Schedule (GS) employee, was not entitled to environmental differential pay
(EDP) for exposure to asbestos under Federal Personnel Manual Supplement 532-1,
Appendix J, because he was not a Federal Wage System employee. The Arbitrator
also ruled that the grievant was not entitled to hazardous duty pay for
exposure to asbestos under 5 C.F.R. part 550, subpart I, Appendix A, because
exposure to asbestos is not listed under Appendix A as a basis for hazardous
duty pay. The Arbitrator found no entitlement to either type of pay under the
parties' collective bargaining agreement and denied the grievance. The Union contends that the Arbitrator misinterpreted the
Federal Personnel Manual, the hazardous duty pay regulations, and the parties'
agreement. For the following reasons, we deny the Union's
exceptions. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award In 1984, the Union requested EDP on behalf of all
Activity employees because of their exposure to asbestos fiber. That matter was
submitted to arbitration. On March 4, 1986, Arbitrator Eisler ordered that EDP
for exposure to asbestos be paid to all wage grade employees at the Activity.
He also ordered the Activity to make a request to the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) for an amendment to the regulations governing hazardous duty
pay for GS employees so that those employees could be paid for exposure to
asbestos. The Activity complied with the award. On April 18, 1987, OPM responded that the request for an
amendment to the regulations was under consideration as part of a larger study.
That study was still in progress as of the date of the present award.
Arbitrator's Award at 1-2. On October 8, 1987, the Union filed a grievance on behalf
of a GS employee at the Activity who claimed entitlement to pay for exposure to
asbestos. The grievance was denied and the matter was submitted to arbitration
on the following issue: Is [the grievant], a General Schedule employee, entitled
to equal pay for equal exposure equivalent to that paid to Wage System
employees for their exposure to asbestos? The Arbitrator referred to Article 25, "Hazardous Duty
Pay & Environmental Differential," of the parties' agreement. That
provision states that EDP for wage system employees will be paid in accordance
with FPM Supplement 532-1, Appendix J, and that hazardous duty pay will be paid
to GS employees in accordance with 5 C.F.R. part 550, subpart I. The Arbitrator
noted that Arbitrator Eisler distinguished between the two classes of employees
in his award. The Arbitrator ruled that the distinction "merely reflected the
distinction which is sharply made by Article 25 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement." Arbitrator's Award at 5-6. The Arbitrator added: "That distinction
is vital in the present situation, because Appendix J [of FPM Supp. 532-1]
lists asbestos as a compensable hazard whereas Appendix A [of 5 C.F.R. part
550, subpart I] does not." Id. at 6. He concluded that because no
amendment to Appendix A has been made, "[t]he Medical Center is no more
authorized to make hazard payment to General Schedule employees for asbestos
hazard now than it was in 1986." Id. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's argument that GS
employees were entitled to hazard pay for exposure to asbestos under Article 10
of the agreement, which provides that employees will be treated fairly and
equitably and without discrimination. He stated that that article was "aimed at
preventing discrimination because of political affiliation, union activity,
race, etc." and that "[t]he listing of those specified objectives in Article 10
brings into play the legal rule that the enumeration of specific items
exclude[s] all other non-listed items." Arbitrator's Award at 6-7. The
Arbitrator held that Article 10 must "be deemed to recognize [the] distinction"
between wage system and GS employees contained in Article 25. Id. at 7.
The Arbitrator stated that "there is no way in which the Medical Center can
make such [hazard] payment to grievant or any other General Schedule employee
unless and until Appendix A is modified by the OPM." Id. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's argument that GS
employees can be paid for exposure to asbestos under Article 24 of the
agreement, which requires the Activity to provide safe and healthful working
conditions. He stated: "A violation of Article 24 does not necessarily trigger
payment under Article 25." Arbitrator's Award at 8. The Arbitrator observed,
however, that there were procedures available under Article 24 by which the
Union could request the Activity to remedy the hazard of asbestos by removing
it. The Arbitrator made the following award: The grievance is denied. However, nothing herein shall
be construed to impair the right of grievant and the Union to proceed under the
provisions of Article 24. Arbitrator's Award at 9. III. The Union's Exceptions The Union contends that the Arbitrator misapplied and
misinterpreted the parties' agreement and the Federal Personnel Manual in
making his award. The Union notes that both management and the Union agree that
the grievant was exposed to asbestos to the same extent as the wage grade
employees who were compensated for exposure. The Union refers to 5 C.F.R.
§ 550.902(b), which defines "[D]uty involving physical hardship," and
contends that such duty includes exposure to dust, including asbestos dust. The
Union points out that while asbestos is not specified in the regulation,
neither is it excluded. IV. Discussion We conclude that the Union has not established that the
contrary to any law, rule, or regulation or that the award is deficient on any
other ground similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor
relations cases. Hazard pay differentials are authorized by the Hazardous
Duty Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5545, and the implementing regulations contained in 5
C.F.R. §§ 550.901 et seq. and Appendix A to 5 C.F.R.
Part 550 (Schedule of Pay Differentials Authorized for Irregular or
Intermittent Hazardous Duty). Hazard pay differentials apply to employees, such
as the grievant, who are covered by chapter 51 of title 5 of the United States
Code and who are otherwise known as GS employees. Hazard pay differentials are
based on a schedule established by OPM and set forth in Appendix A to 5 C.F.R.
Part 550. 5 C.F.R. § 550.903. An agency "shall pay the hazard pay
differential listed in Appendix A to an employee who is assigned to and
duty is not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position." 5
C.F.R. § 550.904. Hazard differential may be paid "only for duty included
in OPM's schedule of irregular or intermittent hazardous duties or duties
involving physical hardship (hereafter referred to as appendix A)." Federal
Personnel Manual Chapter 550-37, section 9-2.b. As the Arbitrator correctly
found in his award, there is no listing in Appendix A authorizing payment of a
differential for hazardous duty for exposure to asbestos. Therefore, GS
employees currently have no entitlement to hazard differential pay for exposure
to asbestos. The Union has demonstrated no legal authority for the payment of
such a differential to the grievant. Accordingly, we are compelled to reject
the Union's assertion that the Arbitrator's award conflicts with the Federal
Personnel Manual. Further, the Union's exception that the Arbitrator
misapplied or misinterpreted the parties' agreement constitutes nothing more
than disagreement with the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreement and with his reasoning and conclusions. Consequently, that
exception fails to show that the award is deficient. See, for
example, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Greensboro,
North Carolina and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3409,
33 FLRA 81, 86 (1988); Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Washington, D.C.
and International Association of Machinists, Franklin Lodge 2135, Washington,
D.C., 32 FLRA 531, 535 (1988). We hold only that the Arbitrator correctly found that the
grievant was not entitled to special compensation under the applicable legal
provisions. Although we question the fairness of a situation in which some
employees who are exposed to asbestos in the course of their work are eligible
for special compensation, but others who are similarly exposed are not eligible
for such compensation simply because they are covered by a different pay
system, we must, nonetheless, deny the exceptions for the reasons stated
above. V. Decision The Union's exceptions are denied. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not