Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v54/54-101.html
Timestamp: 2017-05-25 09:02:14
Document Index: 75822435

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109']

54:1154(101)AR - - Office and Professional Employees Int. Union, Local 268 and DOE, Oak Ridge Operations, Oak Ridge Tennessee [ Energy ] - - 1998 FLRAdec AR - - v54 p1154 | FLRA
You are hereHome 54:1154(101)AR - - Office and Professional Employees Int. Union, Local 268 and DOE, Oak Ridge Operations, Oak Ridge Tennessee [ Energy ] - - 1998 FLRAdec AR - - v54 p1154 54:1154(101)AR - - Office and Professional Employees Int. Union, Local 268 and DOE, Oak Ridge Operations, Oak Ridge Tennessee [ Energy ] - - 1998 FLRAdec AR - - v54 p1154
[ v54 p1154 ] 54:1154(101)AR
The decision of the Authority follows: 54 FLRA No. 101 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 268 (Union) and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE (Agency) 0-AR-2941 _____ DECISION September 28, 1998 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S.
Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.Decision by Member
Wasserman for the Authority. I. Statement of the Case This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of
Arbitrator George V. Eyraud, Jr. filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of
Union's exceptions. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, which claimed that the grievant
was entitled to a temporary promotion. We conclude that the Union fails to
exceptions. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award The grievant claimed that he was entitled to a temporary promotion to
GS-13 for having performed the duties of the organizational property management
officer (OPMO). He alleged that he had performed the duties of the OPMO
position during the period that the existing OPMO was on detail until his
replacement was appointed. The Arbitrator denied the grievance. He found that the grievant could
not be awarded a temporary promotion because during the period for which he
claimed a temporary promotion, the Agency had instituted a freeze on temporary
promotions. He ruled that the freeze was controlling under the parties'
collective bargaining agreement because the Union had not objected to the
freeze when proposed by the Agency. Although the Arbitrator found that temporary promotions were precluded
during the period for which the grievant claimed a promotion, he determined
that the "central issue" was whether the grievant had ever been assigned the
duties of the OPMO position. Award at 8. He noted that the parties' agreement
provided that "[e]mployees temporarily assigned to higher graded positions will
be given a temporary promotion when the employee meets basic qualifications at
[the] time of the assignment." Id. at 9 (quoting Article 17,
Section 6(B)). He found that the grievant was not entitled to a promotion
under the agreement because he had never been assigned the duties of the OPMO
position and he had been specifically instructed by his supervisor not to
perform such duties. The Arbitrator noted that instead, the grievant's two
supervisors performed the duties of the OPMO position during the disputed
period. In denying the grievance, the Arbitrator specifically addressed the
grievant's assertion that his supervisors were not authorized to act as the
OPMO because they had not been appointed by the office manager or the existing
OPMO. While noting that the Agency disagreed with the grievant over the
authority of the grievant's supervisors to act as the OPMO, the Arbitrator
concluded that the assertion nevertheless failed to support the grievant's
position because the grievant also had never been appointed by the office
manager or existing OPMO to act as the OPMO during the disputed period. III. Positions of the Parties A. Union's Exceptions (1) The Union contends that the award is deficient for several
reasons. The Union argues that the Agency unilaterally implemented the freeze on
temporary promotions without notifying and bargaining on request of the Union.
The Union maintains that it timely objected to the proposed freeze under
Article 2, Section 1(B) of the collective bargaining agreement, which
precluded the freeze from going into effect. Consequently, the Union contends
that the award violates section 7116(a)(5) and (7) of the Statute by denying
the grievance partially based on the finding that the Agency had implemented a
freeze. The Union also contends that the award fails to draw its essence from
the collective bargaining agreement because the Union's objection to the
proposed freeze under Article 2 precluded the freeze from going into effect. In
addition, the Union contends that the Arbitrator erroneously found that the
Union had not objected to the proposed freeze. The Union maintains that until
the Arbitrator's award, it was unaware that the freeze had been implemented by
the Agency. The Union also contends that the award is contrary to 41 C.F.R.
§§ 109-1.5005-109-1.5006. The Union claims that the award is
deficient by allowing the grievant's supervisors to appoint themselves the OPMO
and prohibit the grievant from assuming OPMO duties. The Union disputes the
authority of the supervisors and argues that the grievant was properly assigned
the OPMO duties by the existing OPMO when the latter was detailed. The Union
also argues that the Agency violated the regulations by allowing the grievant's
immediate supervisor to appoint herself as OPMO because she was not qualified
to act in that capacity. The Union further contends that the Agency violated
Executive Order 12871 by allowing the grievant's supervisors to appoint
themselves as OPMO. B. Agency's Opposition The Agency contends that the Arbitrator's factual finding that the
grievant was never assigned the duties of the OPMO position requires the denial
of all the Union's exceptions. The Agency asserts that in view of this finding,
the only possible outcome in this case was the denial of the grievance. The
Agency maintains that this finding was dispositive of the grievance and should
be dispositive of the Union's exceptions. The Agency argues that all the issues
raised by the Union in its exceptions are inconsequential. The Agency contends that even if the Arbitrator's finding that the
grievant had never been assigned the higher-graded duties is not viewed as
dispositive, the Union's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award
deficient. The Agency maintains that the Arbitrator correctly found that the
Union failed to object to the proposed freeze on promotions and that
consequently, the freeze was properly implemented under the parties' collective
bargaining agreement. Thus, the Agency asserts that the Union fails to
establish that the award is contrary to the Statute or fails to draw its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement. The Agency also contends that the Union fails to establish any conflict
with 41 C.F.R. § 109-1.5005 or § 109-1.5006. The Agency claims that
both of the grievant's supervisors were properly authorized to act as the OPMO
pursuant to delegations of authority from the field office manager, specified
in agency regulations. Finally, the Agency argues that the Union's reliance on
Executive Order 12871 is misplaced. IV. Analysis and Conclusions A. Exception Pertaining to E.O. 12871 is Barred by Section
2429.5 of the Authority's Regulations Under section 2429.5 of the Authority's Regulations, the Authority will
not consider issues that could have been, but were not, presented to the
There is no indication in the record that the Union argued to the Arbitrator,
as it has in its exceptions, that the Agency violated Executive Order 12871. As
the issue relates to the Agency's conduct, it clearly could have, and should
have, been presented to the Arbitrator. See American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 3627 and Social Security Administration, Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Orlando, Florida, 53 FLRA 1351, 1351 n* (1998)
(SSA). Accordingly, this exception is barred from consideration by the
Authority under section 2429.5. See SSA, 53 FLRA at 1351 n.*;
Ft. Sam Houston, 50 FLRA at 328. B. The Union Fails to Establish that the Award is
Deficient The Arbitrator determined that the central issue of the grievance was
whether the grievant had ever been assigned to perform the duties of the OPMO
position. He denied the grievance because the grievant had not. The Arbitrator
also found that the grievant could not be awarded a temporary promotion because
of the freeze on temporary promotions. The Agency claims that the Arbitrator's
finding that the grievant had never been assigned the duties of the OPMO
position is dispositive and that the Union's exceptions raising other matters
can provide no basis for finding the award deficient. The only assertion in the Union's exceptions that addresses the
Arbitrator's denial of the grievance because the grievant had never been
assigned the duties of the OPMO position is the Union's claim that the grievant
was properly assigned the duties of the OPMO position by the existing OPMO. We
construe this claim as an assertion that the award is based on a nonfact and
find that the Union fails to establish that the award is deficient. To establish that an award is based on a nonfact, the appealing party
but for which the arbitrator would have reached a different result. See
(1993) (Lowry AFB). However, the Authority will not find an award
that the parties had disputed at arbitration. Id. at 594. As the Union
disputes the factual matter resolved by the Arbitrator of whether the existing
OPMO had assigned the OPMO duties to the grievant, no basis is provided for
finding the award deficient. The Authority has repeatedly recognized that when an arbitrator has
establish that all of the grounds are deficient to have the award found
Employees, Local 1857 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air
Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 53 FLRA 1353, 1357
(1998) (McClellan AFB); Indian Educators Federation, New Mexico
Federation of Teachers and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Albuquerque and Navajo Areas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 53 FLRA
352, 361 (1997) (BIA). As the Union provides no basis for finding
deficient the Arbitrator's denial of the grievance because the duties had never
been assigned to the grievant, the Union's exceptions can be denied on this
basis alone. See McClellan AFB, 53 FLRA at 1357; BIA,
53 FLRA at 361. But even if we considered these exceptions, they provide
no basis for finding the award deficient. The Union fails to establish that the award is contrary to 41 C.F.R.
§§ 109-1.5005-109-1.5006 because the grievant's supervisors were not
authorized to act as the OPMO and prohibit the grievant from performing the
duties of the OPMO. In support, the Union merely alleges that the office
manager never authorized the actions, while the Agency specifically asserts
that the office manager properly authorized, in accordance with 41 C.F.R.
§ 109-1.5005, the acts of the supervisors under specified agency
regulations. Furthermore, even if the Union's contention were true, the
grievant was not authorized to act as the OPMO, as specifically found by the
Arbitrator. Thus, the Union fails to show how the Arbitrator's denial of the
grievance is contrary to 41 C.F.R. §§ 109-1.5005-109-1.5006. The Union also fails to establish that the award is contrary to the
Statute, fails to draw its essence from the agreement, or is based on a
nonfact. These exceptions are all based on the Union's assertion that the
Arbitrator erroneously found that the Union had not objected to the proposed
freeze. However, the Union cannot establish that the Arbitrator's factual
finding is deficient because the parties disputed before the Arbitrator whether
the Union had objected to the proposed freeze. See Lowry AFB, 48
FLRA at 594. As the essence and section 7116 claims are based on an
unsustainable premise, the essence and section 7116 claims cannot provide a
basis for finding the award deficient.(2) Accordingly, we deny the Union's exceptions. V. Decision The Union's exceptions are denied. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. After the Union filed its
exceptions, the Union submitted for consideration by the Authority "newly
discovered evidence" that was not in existence when it filed its exceptions.
Union Submission at 1. Arbitration awards are not subject to review on the
basis of evidence that comes into existence after the arbitration hearing.
See U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo
Area Office and National Federation of Federal Employees, BIA Council, 53
FLRA 984, 990 (1997); National Association of Government Employees, Local
Force Base, Langley, Virginia, 53 FLRA 517, 519-20 (1997). Consequently, we
have not considered the "newly discovered evidence" submitted by the Union.
2. Furthermore, although the Union
contends that the award is contrary to section 7116(a)(5) and (7), the Union is
actually claiming that the Agency's actions in implementing the freeze violated
the Statute. This claim could have been, but was not, presented to the
Arbitrator. Consequently, it is barred from consideration by the Authority.
See SSA, 53 FLRA at 1351 n.*. Moreover, the Union's claim that it
did not know that the Agency had implemented a freeze until the Arbitrator's
award is not consistent with the Union's extensive discussion of the freeze in
its post-hearing brief to the Arbitrator. Federal Labor Relations Authority