Source: http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v49/49-063.html
Timestamp: 2015-05-28 08:27:43
Document Index: 712219345

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5114', '§ 9', '§ 2011', '§ 2011', '§ 2009', '§ 2011', '§ 2009', '§ 2011', '§ 2009', '§ 2011', '§ 2011', '§ 2011', '§ 2011', '§ 2009', '§ 2011', '§ 2011']

49:0667(63)AR - - Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chemawa Indian Boarding School, Salem, OR and NFFE, Local 241 - - 1994 FLRAdec AR - - v49 p667 | FLRA.GOV
Authority Chairman and Members Find Types of Cases, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, Guidances, Policies, Manuals, ULP Process, Forms, Representation, ADR Services, and Training.Federal Service Impasses Panel Find Jurisdiction, Statute, Work Schedules Act, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Solicitor, Administrative Law Judges, IG & Others Find General Information about these Offices and Contact Information.training & alternative dispute resolutionFind FLRA Training Information and ADR Services. 49:0667(63)AR - - Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chemawa Indian Boarding School, Salem, OR and NFFE, Local 241 - - 1994 FLRAdec AR - - v49 p667 [ v49 p667 ] 49:0667(63)AR
The decision of the Authority follows: 49 FLRA No. 63 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS CHEMAWA INDIAN BOARDING SCHOOL SALEM, OREGON (Agency) and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 241 (Union) 0-AR-2513 _____ DECISION April 5, 1994 _____ Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Arbitrator Kenneth J. Latsch filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the
Agency's exceptions. The Arbitrator sustained a grievance over the Agency's action in
furloughing bargaining unit employees and directed the Agency to make the
employees whole for the hours of work lost as a result of the furloughs. For
the following reasons, we find that the Agency fails to establish that the
award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the exceptions. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award The dispute in this matter arose in the spring of 1989, when the Agency
notified the Union that, due to a lack of funds, it intended to furlough
bargaining unit employees of the Chemawa Indian School during the summer
months. The Union filed a grievance alleging that the furloughs did not comport
with statutory requirements in a variety of ways. Subsequently, the Union filed
an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge contending that the Agency had, among
other things, failed to bargain over the furloughs. The grievance proceeded to
arbitration before Arbitrator Latsch. The Arbitrator denied the grievance
finding that it was inappropriate to resolve the grievance while the ULP charge
was pending before the Authority. In U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Chemawa Indian Boarding School and National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 241, 39 FLRA 1322 (1991), the Authority
determined that the grievance had been filed before the ULP charge and,
therefore, that the ULP charge did not bar resolution of the grievance under
section 7116 of the Statute. Accordingly, the Authority set aside the award and
remanded the matter to the parties for resubmission to arbitration before a
mutually agreed upon arbitrator. After the parties failed to resolve the dispute in settlement
discussions, the matter was resubmitted to Arbitrator Latsch. The parties
framed the issue for resolution as follows: Has management properly exercised its legitimate right to place
employees on "non-pay/non-duty" status? If there has been a violation of the collective bargaining agreement,
what is the appropriate remedy? Award at 2. The facts in this case reveal that, on May 16, 1989, after being
advised of the Agency's intention to furlough bargaining unit employees, the
Union sent a letter to the school principal inquiring about the likelihood of
furloughs. The Union was concerned that the practice of furloughing, which had
been in effect for the previous eight years, would be continued that summer. On
May 25, 1989, the Agency sent furlough notices to the affected bargaining
unit employees. On May 26, 1989, the principal issued resolution number 89-01
authorizing the furloughs. The resolution stated that, due to a lack of funds,
the Agency would have to furlough "[General Service] Career Status Quo
Educational employees" from June 25, 1989, through August 27, 1989, and
"[Wage Grade] Food Service employees" from June 11, 1989, through
August 27, 1989. Id. at 6. On May 30, 1989, the principal sent a letter to the Union
responding to the latter's questions regarding the likelihood of furloughs. The
principal stated that the Agency was sending employees individual letters
explaining the furlough situation and, further, that the Agency was acting in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. On June 2, 1989, the Agency
issued another resolution, also numbered 89-01, which was signed by a school
board member during a school board meeting and which contained the same wording
as found in the May 26, 1989, resolution. On June 21, 1989, the Union
was provided with the Agency's financial plans for fiscal year 1989, and was
told that those plans would also be presented to the school board. The Union
thereafter filed a grievance concerning the Agency's actions in conducting the
furloughs; as noted, the grievance was ultimately submitted to arbitration on
its merits. The Union argued before the Arbitrator that the Agency illegally
furloughed bargaining unit employees, failed to provide the Union with the
necessary financial plans before the furloughs took place, and deprived the
Union of an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the financial plans
before the furloughs. The Union also maintained that the Agency had not
fulfilled the statutory requirements of Pub. L. No. 100-297,
§ 5114(p)(1)(A), 102 Stat. 379 (1988) and Pub. L. No. 100-427,
§ 9(D), 102 Stat. 1607 (1988).(1) Specifically, the Union asserted that the Agency had not
provided the required financial information in a timely manner, as required,
and did not have the school board's approval prior to the furloughs. The Union
also argued that the Agency had not furloughed employees in an equitable
manner. The Agency maintained "that it did not violate the [parties']
collective bargaining agreement by the furloughs complained of in these
proceedings." Id. at 10. The Agency also contended that it had followed
25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A) and that the reasons for the furloughs
were authorized by this law. Given its deteriorating financial condition, the
Agency claimed that it acted appropriately in furloughing bargaining unit
employees. The Agency also argued that the affected employees were classified
as "career seasonal" employees and were not, therefore, subject to certain
statutory restrictions on furloughs. Id. In addition, the Agency
maintained that it had provided the Union with all financial documents relating
to the school's financial difficulties and asserted that the Arbitrator should
reject the Union's claim to the contrary. The Agency also argued that the
Arbitrator could not interpret the parties' agreement without considering other
applicable rules and regulations and that the furlough "was consistent with the
directive issued by the [A]gency." Id. Finally, the Agency asserted that
the length of the furloughs was consistent with the time frame provided by
25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A). In resolving the issue before him, the Arbitrator noted that both
parties had based their contentions before him "on extensive statutory
interpretation." Id. at 11. Consequently, the Arbitrator stated that he
was obligated to analyze those laws carefully in reaching a determination.
Initially, the Arbitrator noted that the Agency had the right to reduce its
workforce when faced with budgetary constraints. Nevertheless, the Arbitrator
found that "such actions cannot be taken without appropriate notice to affected
unions, and the unions must be given the opportunity to bargain with the
employer concerning the effects of the proposed personnel actions on the
union's members." Id. For the following reasons, the Arbitrator found
that the Agency failed to fulfill its obligations under the parties' agreement
and the relevant statutes. First, the Arbitrator found that the furlough resolution was issued
after the actual furlough notices were mailed to the affected employees. Based
on this finding, the Arbitrator determined that the Union was presented with
the "inevitability of furloughs" without having had an adequate opportunity to
bargain with the Agency on the effects the furloughs would have on bargaining
unit employees. Id. According to the Arbitrator, the Agency presented
the furloughs to the Union as a "fait accompli." Id. The Arbitrator also found that 25 U.S.C. § 2009(b)
requires the Agency to give prior notice of furloughs to the union
representative in the form of "proposed draft financial plans and all
amendments . . . at the same time they are submitted to the local
school board." Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted). Here, the Arbitrator
determined that the Agency did not provide any information to the Union until
after the furlough notices were issued and that there was no indication any
draft documents were discussed with the Union prior to May 26, 1989.
Consequently, the Arbitrator found that "the Union could only protest the
action already taken when it finally had an opportunity to make any comment at
all." Id. The Arbitrator also rejected the Agency's argument that it had timely
notified the Union of the furloughs. In this regard, the Arbitrator found that
25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A) requires the school principal to have
prior approval of the local school board before furloughs can be implemented.
The Arbitrator found that the school board was fully aware of the budget
difficulties facing the school and that the decision-making process was pursued
in a timely and deliberate manner. Apparently based on his earlier finding that
the Agency could not take certain personnel actions without giving the Union an
opportunity to bargain concerning the effects of those proposed actions, the
Arbitrator found that the Union should have been, but was not, given an
opportunity to discuss the impending furloughs during the deliberation period.
Therefore, the Arbitrator found that the Agency had not fulfilled its
contractual and statutory obligations in conducting the furloughs. As a
consequence, the Arbitrator concluded that "the furloughs must be overturned."
Id. at 13. As his award, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance and directed the
Agency "to make whole the affected employees for time lost due to the
furloughs." Id. The Arbitrator also retained jurisdiction for a period
of 30 days to resolve any disputes over the amount of compensation due
employees. III. First Exception A. Positions of the Parties In its first exception, the Agency argues that the award is deficient
because it is based on nonfacts. First, the Agency argues that the Arbitrator erred in concluding that
the Agency failed to provide the Union with any financial information until
after the furlough notices were issued. The Agency maintains that in December
1988, prior to the issuance of the furlough notices, the Agency alerted the
Union to the possibility of furloughing employees during the summer of 1989.
The Agency argues that because the Arbitrator's finding was erroneous and was
central to the award, the award must be set aside. In support of this
contention, the Agency cites U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical
Center, Jackson, Mississippi and National Federation of Federal Employees,
Local 589, 46 FLRA 1638, 1647-48 (1993) (NFFE, Local 589). Additionally, the Agency claims that the Arbitrator mistakenly found
that the furlough resolution issued on behalf of the school board on
May 26, 1989, was issued after furlough notices were mailed to unit
employees. The Agency argues that the furlough notices were sent to the
employees on May 25, 1989, the same date the approval of two members of the
school board was obtained by telephone.(2) The Agency further claims that the school board could have
rescinded its approval of the furloughs before their effective date of
June 25, 1989.(3) The Union contends that the Agency's exception constitutes an attempt
to relitigate this matter before the Authority. Specifically, the Union argues
that the Arbitrator's findings that the Agency failed to provide any financial
information to the Union and that the May 26, 1989, furlough resolution
was issued after the May 25, 1989, furlough notices were sent to employees
are not nonfacts but are "legitimate factual determinations made by the
Arbitrator[.]" Opposition at 1. B. Analysis and Conclusions We conclude that the Agency fails to establish that the award is
deficient because it is based on nonfacts. To establish that an award is based on a nonfact, the appealing party
arbitrator. For example, General Services Administration, Region 2
and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2431, 46 FLRA
1039, 1046-47 (1992) (GSA, Region 2). However, this basis for finding an
arbitration award deficient does not permit the appealing party to dispute the
arbitrator's findings of fact. U.S. Department of the Air Force, Lowry Air
Local 1497, 48 FLRA 589, 593 (1993) (Lowry Air Force Base). In
reviewing awards alleged to be deficient because they are based on a nonfact,
the Authority applies the limitations recognized by the Federal courts in
reviewing arbitration awards in the private sector, and we apply the principles
of the Supreme Court in generally refusing to disturb the factual findings and
determinations of arbitrators in the Federal sector. Id. at 593-94.
Consequently, exceptions that constitute nothing more than disagreement with an
arbitrator's factual findings and determinations on disputed or ambiguous
evidence provide no basis for finding an award deficient because it is based on
a nonfact. In this case, it is clear that the circumstances under which the Agency
provided notice to the Union of the impending furloughs were disputed. Thus,
there has been no demonstration that the award was based on a "clear
misstatement[] of undisputed historical fact." Lowry Air Force Base, 48
FLRA at 594, quoting National Post Office Mailhandlers v. U.S. Postal
Service, 751 F.2d 834, 843 (6th Cir. 1985). Therefore, the Agency's claims
that the Arbitrator erred in finding both that the Agency did not provide
financial information to the Union before issuing the furlough notices to
employees and that the furlough resolution was issued by the school board after
notices were sent to employees constitute mere disagreement with the
Arbitrator's factual determinations. In addition, the Agency has not
demonstrated that either of these factual findings constituted the central fact
underlying the award. Accordingly, the Agency has not established a clear
mistake of fact but for which, in accordance with the rationale expressed in
his award, the Arbitrator would have reached a different result. See
GSA, Region 2, 46 FLRA at 1047. Therefore, we find that the Agency's
exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. In addition, we find that the Agency's reliance on NFFE, Local
589 is misplaced. In that case, the Authority set aside an award, in part,
because the appealing party had demonstrated that the fact relied on by the
Arbitrator was erroneous and that but for the erroneous finding the arbitrator
would have reached a different conclusion. In contrast, the Agency has not
demonstrated that any of the Arbitrator's factual findings were erroneous. IV. Second Exception A. Positions of the Parties The Agency argues that the award is deficient because it is contrary to
law. In support, the Agency maintains that the Arbitrator based his
determination that the Agency had acted improperly in furloughing employees on
misinterpretations of the applicable provisions of law. Specifically, the
Agency argues that the Arbitrator misstated 25 U.S.C. § 2009(b)
as requiring the Agency to provide the Union with draft financial documents and
to discuss them with the Union prior to issuing the May 26, 1989, furlough
resolution and prior to notifying employees of the furloughs. The Agency argues
that the plain language of section 2009(b) requires only that the Agency
provide the Union with a copy of financial plans at the same time they are
submitted to the school board. The Agency claims that it fulfilled this
requirement when it provided information to the Union in December 1988 and on
June 21, 1989. The Agency also argues that the legislative history
pertaining to this provision demonstrates that the congressional intent in
enacting it was to provide notice to employees through their union and to
provide local school boards with the authority to modify financial plans. The
Agency argues that, under the provision, the Union does not have the authority
to alter or bargain over financial plans, to discuss or consult on the
financial plans, or to bargain over the decision to furlough employees. The
Agency further states that Congress contemplated that furloughs during the
summer would be a routine procedure and, therefore, that the furloughs
"constituted an established practice sanctioned by statute." Exceptions at 10.
The Agency also argues that the Arbitrator misinterpreted
25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A) as requiring the Agency to discuss the
impending furloughs with the Union during the deliberation period between the
Agency and the school board. The Agency maintains that the plain language of
this provision does not require notice or discussion with the Union prior to
the issuance of furlough notices and, in fact, makes no reference to a union's
bargaining rights. The Agency also argues that this provision does not mandate
that the approval of the school board be obtained prior to the issuance of
furlough notices to employees. The Agency contends that this provision only
requires that a determination by the Agency to furlough employees for periods
longer than 4 weeks be approved by the school board. In addition, the Agency
maintains that there is no requirement that the school board's approval be in a
particular form. In this case, the Agency argues that the telephonic approval
by the school board on May 25-26, 1989, satisfies the requirements of this
provision because the timing of school board approval and the format of such
approval are left to management's discretion. The Union contends that the Agency is merely attempting "to reopen old
arguments in areas that the Arbitrator has rendered decisions[]" and to
relitigate these matters before the Authority. Opposition at 1. B. Analysis and Conclusions We find that the Agency has not established that the award is contrary
to law. Accordingly, we will deny the exception. First, we reject the Agency's contention that the Arbitrator misstated
25 U.S.C. § 2009(b). That provision states that proposed draft
financial plans will be provided to appropriate union representatives at the
same time they are submitted to the local school board. The Arbitrator noted
this provision and found that the Agency failed to comply with it. In support
of his conclusion, the Arbitrator found no evidence that draft documents were
provided to and discussed with the Union before the school board issued its
furlough resolution on May 26, 1989. We also reject the Agency's claim that the Arbitrator misinterpreted
25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A). The Arbitrator did not find that that
statutory provision required furlough discussions with the Union during the
school board's deliberation period. Instead, the Arbitrator found that the
provision requires the school principal to have prior approval of the school
board before implementing furloughs. Based on this statutory requirement, the
Arbitrator concluded that deliberations over the furlough had, in fact, been
conducted. Although the Arbitrator found that the Union should have been given
an opportunity to discuss the furloughs during that period, his finding was not
predicated on a requirement contained in 25 U.S.C.
§ 2011(p)(1)(A). Similarly, the Arbitrator did not find that
25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A) mandates the approval of the school
board prior to issuing furlough notices to employees, as the Agency claims. As
noted, the Arbitrator simply found that that statutory provision requires the
school principal to have the local school board's approval prior to
implementing a furlough. Additionally, the Arbitrator made no findings with
respect to the form of the school board's approval in a manner contrary to 25
U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A). In sum, we find no basis on which to conclude that the award is
deficient as contrary to law. See, for example, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service and National Treasury
Employees Union, 46 FLRA 1433, 1439-41 (1993). Accordingly, this
exception is denied. V. Third Exception A. Positions of the Parties The Agency argues that the award "fails to draw its essence from the
parties' collective bargaining agreement . . . ." Exceptions at
1. In this connection, the Agency asserts that in concluding that it did not
fulfill its obligations under the parties' agreement, the Arbitrator
"completely failed to point out or discuss which provisions of the agreement
the Arbitrator found were not fulfilled by the Agency." Id. at 14.
The Agency also argues that the Arbitrator ignored the fact that furloughs were
an established past practice at the school. Consequently, the Agency maintains
that the issuance of the furlough notices did not constitute a change in
working conditions over which the Agency was required to bargain. However, even
assuming there was a change in working conditions, the Agency argues that the
Union waived its right to bargain over the impact and implementation of the
furloughs. In this regard, the Agency asserts that under Article 22, Section 4c
of the parties' master labor agreement, the Union had 15 days from the date it
received notice of the furloughs to provide the Agency with written proposals
relating to the impact and implementation of the furloughs.(4) The Agency argues that it placed
the Union on "general notice" of the furloughs in December 1988, and made a
specific response to the Union's inquiry on May 30, 1989. Id. at
16. The Agency states that the Union failed to present it with any written
proposals or requests for impact bargaining. As a result, the Agency maintains
that the Arbitrator should have enforced this waiver provision. In support, the
Agency cites Authority precedent for the proposition that an agency has no
obligation to bargain where, as here, an agreement covers the subject matter at
issue. The Union claims that the Agency is simply disagreeing with the
Arbitrator's conclusions. The Union also maintains that the Agency is raising
arguments that should have been presented to the Arbitrator. B. Analysis and Conclusions To establish that an award is deficient because it fails to draw its
essence from an agreement, the party making the allegation must demonstrate
agreement; (2) is so unfounded in reason and fact, and so unconnected with
the wording and the purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to
the obligation of the arbitrator; (3) evidences a manifest disregard of
agreement. For example, U.S. Department of the Air Force, Carswell
Air Force Base, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1364, 43 FLRA 1266, 1269 (1992). In this case, the Agency has failed to establish that the award is
deficient under any of these tests. First, we reject the Agency's assertion
that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator did not identify and discuss
the specific provisions of the agreement that he found were violated. While it
is true that the Arbitrator did not cite the portions of the agreement in his
award, the Arbitrator referred to and addressed the Agency's contention that
the furloughs did not violate the parties' agreement. In our view, the
Arbitrator addressed with sufficient particularity the agreement provisions
that were presented for his consideration. See American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 3529 and U.S. Department of Defense, Defense
Contract Audit Agency, 35 FLRA 1108, 1113 (1990) and cases cited therein.
As the Authority has stated, the fact that an award does not address specific
provisions of an agreement does not establish that such provisions were not
considered by the arbitrator and does not provide a basis for finding the award
deficient. See, for example, U.S. Department of the Army,
Government Employees, Local R4-6, 45 FLRA 480, 482 (1992).
Consequently, the Agency has not demonstrated that the award fails to draw its
essence from the agreement on this basis. The Agency argues specifically that the Arbitrator should have found
that furloughs were a past practice and, therefore, that the furloughs in 1989
did not constitute a change in working conditions, or, in the alternative, that
the Arbitrator should have applied Article 22, Section 4c of the parties'
agreement to find that the Union waived its right to bargain over the impact
and implementation of the furloughs. The Union claims that these arguments were
not presented to the Arbitrator. The Agency has presented no evidence that
counters this claim. Under section 2429.5 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, the Authority will not consider any issue that was not presented
in the proceedings before an arbitrator. For example, U.S. Department
of Defense, Dependents Schools, Alexandria, Virginia and Overseas Education
Association, 41 FLRA 982, 999 (1991). Accordingly, we will not
consider these arguments by the Agency. VI. Decision The Agency's exceptions are denied. APPENDIX 25 U.S.C. § 2009(b) provides in pertinent part: The supervisor shall provide the appropriate union representative of
the education employees with copies of proposed draft financial plans and all
amendments or modifications thereto, at the same time they are submitted to the
local school board. 25 U.S.C. § 2011(p)(1)(A) provides in pertinent part: (1) An educator . . . may not be placed on furlough (within the
meaning of section 7511(a)(5) of Title 5) without the consent of such educator
for an aggregate of more than 4 weeks within the same calendar year,
unless-- (A) the supervisor, with the approval of the local school board (or
of the agency superintendent for education upon appeal under paragraph (2)), of
the [Agency] school at which such educator provides services determines that a
longer period of furlough is necessary due to an insufficient amount of funds
available for personnel compensation at such school, as determined under the
financial plan process as determined under section 2009(b) of this
title . . . . FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. The relevant statutory provisions,
respectively codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 2011(p)(1)(A) and 2009(b), are
set forth in the Appendix to this decision. For convenience, all future
references hereinafter will be to Title 25.