Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v53/53-048.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 12:09:14
Document Index: 237043813

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 430', '§ 430', 'art 430', 'art 451', 'art 451', '§ 430']

53:0422(48)AR - - HHS, FDA, Kansas City District and NTEU, Chapter 254 - - 1997 FLRAdec AR - - v53 p422 | FLRA
You are hereHome 53:0422(48)AR - - HHS, FDA, Kansas City District and NTEU, Chapter 254 - - 1997 FLRAdec AR - - v53 p422 53:0422(48)AR - - HHS, FDA, Kansas City District and NTEU, Chapter 254 - - 1997 FLRAdec AR - - v53 p422
[ v53 p422 ] 53:0422(48)AR
The decision of the Authority follows: 53 FLRA No. 48 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION KANSAS CITY DISTRICT (Agency) and NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 254 (Union) 0-AR-2782 _____ DECISION September 24, 1997 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; and Donald S. Wasserman, Member. 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 Timothy J. Heinsz filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the
agreement by precluding consideration of certain employees for performance
awards. As a remedy, the Arbitrator ordered that the Agency grant these
employees the performance awards they otherwise would have received. We conclude that the remedy is deficient. Accordingly, we modify the
remedy to permit the Agency to review and approve in accordance with 5 C.F.R.
§ 430.504(d) the performance awards ordered by the Arbitrator. Otherwise,
we deny the Agency's exceptions. II. Background and Arbitrator's Award On the basis of agency directives restricting the number of
performance awards for the appraisal period in dispute, the Agency was limited
to granting no more than 59 performance awards to bargaining-unit
employees. For the disputed period, 36 employees in the unit had been
rated "outstanding" and 73 employees had been rated "excellent." The
district director determined that awards would be granted only to employees who
had been rated "outstanding." He determined that no awards would be granted to
employees rated "excellent" because there was no way to fairly distinguish
among them. The union filed a grievance disputing the director's
determination. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance. He found that the Agency
violated the collective bargaining agreement by categorically precluding from
consideration for performance awards employees who had been rated "excellent."
As a remedy, the Arbitrator ordered that the Agency grant these employees the
performance awards they otherwise would have received. He retained jurisdiction
until the remedy had been implemented. III. Exceptions A. Agency's Contentions First, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority
by retaining jurisdiction for unspecified reasons. Although the Agency
acknowledges that arbitrators may properly retain jurisdiction to oversee the
implementation of remedies, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator's retention
is deficient because it is not defined. Second, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator's
remedy is contrary to 5 C.F.R. § 430.504(d).(1) The Agency argues that the remedy
ignores its right to disapprove performance awards. Third, the Agency contends that the remedy is
contrary to management's right to determine its budget under
section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. The Agency claims that the Arbitrator's
order conflicts with management's right because it prescribes a particular
program or operation that the Agency must include in its budget. B. Union's Opposition First, the Union contends that the
Arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction was proper because it was for the
purpose of overseeing the implementation of the remedy. The Union maintains
that the exception is nothing more than a dispute over semantics. Second, the Union contends that the remedy does
not conflict with section 430.504(d). In support, the Union relies on NTEU
v. FLRA, 30 F.3d 1510 (D.C. Cir. 1994) and the decisions of the Authority
in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Employees, 48 FLRA 370 (1993) (HHS); U.S. Department of the
Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah and American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1592, 46 FLRA 1297 (1993)
(Hill AFB); and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social
1923, 46 FLRA 1126 (1993) (SSA). Third, the Union contends that
the remedy does not conflict with section 7106(a)(1) because it does not
address the Agency's budget. IV. Analysis and Conclusions A. The Arbitrator's Retention of Jurisdiction
Is Not Deficient The Agency fails to establish that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority
by retaining jurisdiction. We agree with the Union that it is clear from the
award that the purpose of the Arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction was to
resolve any disputes over implementation of the award. As recognized by both
parties, the Authority has uniformly upheld the retention of jurisdiction by
arbitrators for the purpose of resolving any disputes over implementation of an
award. E.g., U.S. Department of Defense, Army and Air Force Exchange
Service, George Air Force Base, California and National Federation of Federal
Employees, Local 977, 40 FLRA 79, 83 (1991); Overseas Education
Association and Department of Defense Dependents Schools, Atlantic Region,
31 FLRA 80, 93 (1988). Therefore, we deny the Agency's exception. B. Section 430.504(d) As the Agency's exception that the Arbitrator's
remedy is contrary to section 430.504(d) involves its consistency with
regulation, we review this question de novo. U.S. Department
of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama and
Wiregrass Metal Trades Council, 52 FLRA 89, 91 (1996) (Ft. Rucker).
An arbitration award is deficient under section 7122(a)(1) of the Statute if it
is contrary to an applicable Government-wide regulation. U.S. Department of
the Army, Fort Campbell District, Third Region, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2022, 37 FLRA 186, 191
(1990). We find that the Arbitrator's remedy is contrary to section 430.504(d).
1. Section 430.504(d) Applies In 1995, the provisions in 5 C.F.R. part 430
pertaining to performance awards, including section 430.504(d), were replaced
by a revised 5 C.F.R. part 451. The revised part 451 does not contain the
requirement for higher-level review and approval set forth in
section 430.504(d).(2) However, we
apply section 430.504(d) because it was in existence at all relevant times and
the rights the Agency had under this provision would be impaired if we did not
apply it in resolving the Agency's exception. Ft. Rucker, 52 FLRA at 91
n.3. 2. The Remedy Is Contrary to Section
430.504(d) Section 430.504(d) is a Government-wide
regulation that was promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Id. at 92. OPM provided the Authority with an advisory opinion
concerning its interpretation in a case that was subsequently withdrawn.(3) In the opinion, OPM advised that section
430.504(d) requires review and approval of each individual performance award.
Id. We applied OPM's opinion in Ft. Rucker in
finding deficient the arbitrator's order that the agency grant a performance
award. Deferring to OPM's interpretation, we concluded that the order was
deficient because it deprived the agency of its discretion to approve or
disapprove the performance award ordered by the arbitrator. Id. at
93. On the basis of OPM's opinion and its application
in Ft. Rucker, we conclude that the Arbitrator's remedy in this
case is contrary to section 430.504(d) because it deprives the Agency of its
discretion to approve or disapprove the performance awards ordered by the
Arbitrator. See id. Because employees who were rated "excellent"
were never considered for awards as a result of the Agency's directives, we
modify the award to permit the Agency to review in accordance with section
430.504(d) the Arbitrator's order to grant performance awards to the individual
employees who were rated "excellent." In finding the award deficient, we reject the
Union's reliance on NTEU v. FLRA. OPM's interpretation of
section 430.504(d) is authoritative and reasonable. See id.
at 92-93. Consequently, as provided by the court's decision, OPM's opinion is
controlling. 30 F.3d at 1516. We also reject the Union's reliance on the
Authority's decisions in HHS, Hill AFB, and SSA. In view
of OPM's opinion, those cases provide no basis for denying the Agency its right
to review and approve all performance awards. C. The Remedy Is Not Contrary to Section
7106(a)(1) No basis is provided for finding the award,
as modified, contrary to management's right to determine its budget under
section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. The Arbitrator's order to grant performance
awards will now be subject to the review and approval of the Agency.
Consequently, any expenditure of funds will be as the result of the actions of
the Agency and not the Arbitrator's award. Accordingly, we deny the Agency's
exception. V. Decision The Arbitrator's award is modified to permit the
Agency to review in accordance with section 430.504(d) the Arbitrator's order
to grant performance awards to unit employees who were rated "excellent."
Otherwise, the Agency's exceptions are denied. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. 5 C.F.R.
§ 430.504(d) (1994) provides: The decision to grant a performance award,
including the amount of such award, shall be reviewed and approved by an
official of the agency who is at a higher level than the official who made the
initial decision, unless there is no official at a higher level in the
agency. 2. We note that
due to these regulatory changes, this is likely the last such case to be
resolved by the Authority. 3. OPM provided
this interpretation in the remand of NTEU v. FLRA, on which the Union
relies. In remanding the case, the court acknowledged that it had decided the
case in the absence of any authoritative guidance from OPM. The court advised
that the Authority's position could be sustained only if OPM issued an
authoritative and reasonable interpretation of section 430.504(d) in
support of the Authority's position. 30 F.3d at 1516-17. Federal Labor Relations Authority