Source: http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v50/50-049.html
Timestamp: 2014-08-01 01:43:03
Document Index: 430370457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5596', '§ 5596', '§ 5110', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 102', '§ 5596']

50:0282(49)CA - - Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region East, New Cumberland, PA and AFGE, Local 2004 - - 1995 FLRAdec CA - - v50 p282 | 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. 50:0282(49)CA - - Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region East, New Cumberland, PA and AFGE, Local 2004 - - 1995 FLRAdec CA - - v50 p282 [ v50 p282 ] 50:0282(49)CA
The decision of the Authority follows: 50 FLRA No. 49 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION REGION EAST NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA (Respondent/Agency) and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2004 (Charging Party/Union) BP-CA-20681 _____ DECISION AND ORDER MARCH 29, 1995 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz
and Pamela Talkin, Members. I. Statement of the Case The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the
(the Statute) when it repudiated a negotiated grievance settlement agreement
requiring the Respondent to grant certain bargaining unit employees backpay for
certain temporary promotions. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
decision and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the exceptions. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we
adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.(*) II. Order Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region East, New Cumberland,
Pennsylvania, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to effectuate a settlement agreement reached with the
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004, the exclusive
representative of certain of its employees, requiring the payment of backpay to
certain employees. (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or
purposes and policies of the Statute: (a) In accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 5596, effectuate the settlement agreement by providing backpay to
each employee named in the settlement agreement for the period of underpayment
indicated, up to 5 years, together with interest to the date of payment. In
addition, request that the Office of Personnel Management formally authorize
the Agency to grant a retroactive temporary promotion with backpay to each such
employee for any period of underpayment in excess of 5 years. (b) Post at its New Cumberland, Pennsylvania facilities where
bargaining unit employees are located copies of the attached Notice on forms to
forms, they shall be signed by the Commander, Susquehanna Distribution Site,
Order as to what steps have been taken to comply. NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL NOT refuse to effectuate a settlement agreement reached with the
representative of certain of our employees, requiring the payment of backpay to
certain employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL, in accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596,
effectuate the settlement agreement by providing backpay to each employee named
in the settlement agreement for the period of underpayment indicated, up to 5
years, together with interest to the date of payment. In addition, we will
request that the Office of Personnel Management formally authorize the Agency
to grant a retroactive temporary promotion with backpay to each such employee
for any period of underpayment in excess of 5 years. _______________________________(Activity) Dated:____________ By:_____________________________ (Signature)
telephone number is: (617) 424-5730. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION REGION EAST NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2004 Charging Party Case No. BP-CA-20681 Gene H. Anderson, Esquire For the Respondent Barbara S. Liggett, Esquire Richard D. Zaiger, Esquire For the
General Counsel Before: JOHN H. FENTON Chief Administrative Law Judge DECISION Statement of the Case This case presents the question whether Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) when it repudiated a negotiated grievance settlement
agreement which called for backpay to employees who had been reclassified to
higher-graded positions. Respondent acknowledges that it reneged, asserting it
was required to do so by the Back Pay Act and its implementing regulations. In
essence, Respondent, relying on a 1976 Supreme Court decision,(1) asserts that a wrongly classified
employee has no right to recover money for pay lost as a consequence of such
classification. Findings of Fact On December 11, 1990, WG-4 Supply Worker Dale Fishel withdrew an
EEO age discrimination case in which he had complained of performing WG-5
duties since 1982, and sought backpay. The controversy was largely resolved
when Respondent agreed to reclassify (i.e. to noncompetitively promote on the
basis of accretion of duties) Fishel and 21 other apparently similarly situated
employees to WG-5. However, the EEO Counselor informed Fishel that a grievance
would be necessary to resolve the backpay claim, as none would be available as
a consequence of the EEO complaint. Fishel (or the Union in his behalf) filed a grievance which was, or at
least came to be treated as, a group grievance. Various employees were added to
it as it worked its way into the third step before Michael Yost, Chief,
Directorate of Distribution, Susquehanna Site East. Yost and several of his
staff members were clearly sympathetic to the claims for backpay for periods of
improper classification. As a consequence of investigations focusing on the
extent to which, and for how long various claimants were operating material
handling equipment (MHE), determinations were made as to when the accretion of
new MHE duties would have warranted reclassification. A compromise was then
reached, which included simply lopping one year off the estimates arrived at,
and 14 employees were offered backpay for periods running from seven
months to seven years.(2) The parties signed off on the agreement on August 22,
1991, and it was expected that the employees would receive their backpay in
December. In October the Union came into possession of an internal management
memorandum written by Chief Counsel James E. Toms. Toms recommended against
payment of backpay on the ground such recovery is precluded by the Back Pay
Act, the Federal Personnel Manual and the grievance clause of the collective
bargaining agreement. On January 24, 1992 the Commander of the Susquehanna Distribution
Site, in a letter to the Acting Chief Steward, informed him of the decision
that Yost's "proposed" settlement of the backpay claims was not authorized by
law, and hence could not be "offered". Noting that all the promotions were made
without competition based upon reclassification because of additional duties
and responsibilities, the Commander said that the Back Pay Act, by its terms,
did "not apply to any reclassification action". He further contended that the
Act did not apply because limited by its terms to "unjustified or unwarranted
personnel action which has resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or
part of the pay, . . . of the employee". Here, no grievant suffered an absolute
diminution of his or her WG-4 pay. Finally, the Commander argued that the
grievance was timed-barred. On January 27, in response to the unfair labor
practice charge, that refusal was reaffirmed. Positions of the Parties General Counsel, citing ample precedent for the proposition that
repudiation of a negotiated agreement is violative of section 7116(a)(1) and
(5), asserts the grievance settlement agreement herein is not inconsistent with
the Back Pay Act. Thus, while that Act "does not apply to any reclassification
action" (5 USC 5596(b)(3)) the grievance did not, as Respondent
argues, concern a classification issue, but rather compensation for performing
higher graded duties. This is so, asserts General Counsel, notwithstanding 12
of the 14 grievants due backpay were in fact reclassified, because the
grievance did not seek reclassification, but rather dealt "only with the time
the employees were, in effect, temporarily promoted to higher-graded positions
and their entitlement to backpay for this period." In answer to Respondent's
argument that the "real issue in the grievances was backpay for a period of
wrongful classification rather than for a period in which (the grievants) were,
in effect, temporarily promoted," General Counsel responds that the testimony
established "that the promotions were processed as reclassification actions
only to circumvent a management directive which prevented the Respondent from
making promotions at that time. Furthermore, says General Counsel, whether
Respondent properly processed the promotions is simply irrelevant to the
question whether Yost, in considering the grievances "could have found that the
grievants had been temporarily promoted to the WG-5 position for the periods
claimed." In this respect it is noted that Yost had determined that the
grievants in fact performed WG-5 MHE duties during the periods covered in the
settlement agreement, and that as chief negotiator of the collective bargaining
agreement he necessarily knew the difference between the provisions dealing
with temporary promotions and those dealing with classification actions. Respondent defends on a number of grounds: (1) Section 7121(c)(5) of the Statute, concerning the scope of
grievance procedures, and the grievance provision here (Article 38,
Section 4a(5)) preclude grievances concerning "the classification of any
position which does not result in the reduction in grade or pay of an
employee". (2) The Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. 5596) provides, at subsection
(b)(3), that it "does not apply to any reclassification action" and, further,
in subsection (b)(1), is made applicable only where the "unjustified or
unwarranted personnel action . . . has resulted in the withdrawal or reduction
of all or part of the grievant's pay, allowances, or differentials." No
reduction occurred here. (3) Neither the Classification Act (5 U.S.C. § 5110
et seq.) nor the Back Pay Act creates a substantive right to
backpay for the period of the claimed wrongful classification (U.S. v.
Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976)). As that Court put it, "the federal
employee is entitled to receive only the salary of the position to which he is
appointed, even though he may have performed the duties of another position or
claims that he should have been placed in a higher grade". (4) The relevant regulation implementing the Back Pay Act (Federal
Personnel Manual, Supplement 990-2, Subchapter 5-8), does not operate in the
circumstances to create an exception to the above-described rule against
backpay during a period of improper classification. While an "unjustified or
unwarranted personnel action" may be found for backpay purposes, based on a
violation of a mandatory personnel policy established by an agency or through a
collective bargaining agreement, there was here no unilateral agency policy,
and the collective bargaining agreement provision respecting temporary
promotions was not "mandatory", as the regulation requires. (5) No promotions could be made, because vacancies did not exist. (6) The agreement violates the Back Pay Act and 5 CFR 335.102
prohibit temporary promotions in excess of two years without authorization from
OPM. Analysis and Conclusions As noted in the discussion of the General Counsel's position, a
violation has occurred in the repudiation of the negotiated grievance
settlement agreement(3), unless that agreement is void because it violates "any other
law, rule or regulation."(4) The Authority has repeatedly held that a grievance claiming entitlement
to a temporary promotion for the time during which a grievant performed the
duties of a higher graded position does not concern the classification of any
position within the meaning of section 7121(c)(5) of the Statute.(5) Here the grievants had already
been reclassified before any grievance was filed. Nor does the agreement necessarily conflict with the terms of the Back
Pay Act. Backpay may be awarded upon a finding that a grievant was affected by
an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action which directly resulted in the
withdrawal or reduction of the grievant's pay, where such reduction would not
have occurred but for such action. Here agency managers determined upon
investigation that 14 employees had in fact performed WG-5 duties while
receiving WG-4 pay for periods ranging from months to years. Implicit in the
agreement to make them whole for such loss was a finding that the collective
bargaining agreement was violated when the accretion of new and higher graded
duties was ignored to their detriment.(6) There is a long-recognized exception to the general rule that an
actually is appointed. It exists "where the parties to a collective bargaining
agree-ment agree to make temporary promotions mandatory for details to higher
grade positions, thereby establishing a nondiscre-tionary agency policy which
would provide a basis for backpay."(7) Article 16, Section 5 of the collective bargaining agreement
provides: Where possible, temporary promotions will be effected rather than a
detail when known in advance that a temporary assignment to a higher grade will
last thirty (30) calendar days or more. In such cases, an employee may be
detailed until such time that a qualification determination can be made by the
Employer to determine eligibility for the promotion. Normally, a qualification
determination will be made within thirty (30) work days after an employee has
been detailed to a higher-graded position. Temporary promotions will be made
effective no later than the first day of the beginning of a pay period after an
"eligible" qualification determination has been made. In Long Beach, a comparable provision said a "temporary
promotion will normally be effected" when certain criteria were met. Just as
Respondent here argues that the words "(w)here possible" render the provision
nonmandatory, the Navy in Long Beach contended the word "normally" left
discretion in its hands, i.e. failed to establish the requisite
nondiscre-tionary policy. There the Authority upheld the arbitrator's holding
that the contract required a temporary promotion in the absence of a showing by
the agency that unusual circum-stances justified its action. Similarly, it has
not been shown here that temporary promotions were not possible. On the
contrary, the middle managers said the employees had been misassigned, i.e. had
been assigned for months/years to the duties of a higher graded position
without being compensated therefor. The grievance settlement, by agreeing to
make grievants whole for such underpayment, and in the absence of any other
authority for providing backpay, can be read as implicitly acknowledging that
unwarranted personnel actions occurred when, in violation of contract,
grievants were not temporarily promoted while assigned to the higher-graded MHE
work. We are nevertheless presented with a problem respecting technical
compliance with the Back Pay Act and the implement-ing regulations found at
5 CFR § 550.801 et seq. They require that an
administrative determination by an "appropriate authority" that the grievants
were affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action (here the
failure to promote temporarily in violation of contract) that resulted in the
reduction of their pay, before payment of backpay is authorized. 5 CFR § 550.803(j) defines "the head of the employing
agency or another official of the employing agency to whom such authority is
delegated" as an appropriate authority. There is no contention and no evidence
on this record that Yost was not empowered to settle the grievance by applying
the Back Pay Act and its implementing regulations. Yost did not, as would have
been required, say, of an Arbitrator or an Administrative Law Judge, explicitly
find that the aggrieved employees were (1) affected by an unjustified or
unwarranted personnel action; (2) that such action directly resulted in
the reduction of their pay; and (3) at least implicitly that, but for such
action, grievants otherwise would not have suffered the reductions. (See
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 42 FLRA 1342, 1347-1349). Furthermore,
5 CFR § 550.804(c) states that "the requirement for an
'administrative determination' is met when an appropriate authority determines,
in writing, that an employee has been affected by an unjustified
or unwarranted personnel action." (Emphasis mine.) Yost did not, in writing,
even declare that such a personnel action had occurred. He simply said, on the
grievance form, that, as agreed in a meeting with the Union, "back pay is
granted to the grievants listed in the enclosure". (G.C. Exh. 2) I nevertheless conclude that Yost implicitly found in writing (i.e. the
settlement) that an unjustified and unwarranted personnel action had affected
the grievants, and that such action directly resulted in loss of pay. Thus, the
grievance shows a claim for backpay based upon misassignment, and Yost
determined that the various grievants had, in fact, for the months or years set
opposite the names in the settlement enclosure, used MHE equipment on a
sufficiently regular basis to warrant promotion to WG-5. The contract called
for temporary promotions when it was known that a "temporary assignment to a
higher grade will last thirty (30) calendar days or more." Presumably for that
reason (as its application is disputed by the parties and no other existed),
Yost determined that a settlement offer should be made, conceding, in effect,
that the failure to compensate grievants at the WG-5 rate, while imposing WG-5
duties on them, was an unwarranted personnel practice requiring that they be
made whole. Settlement of such claims, without admitting one has violated law
or regulation, would appear to be impossible if it must include an explicit,
written "administrative determination" that an unjustified or unwarranted
personnel action occurred which gives rise to statutory entitlement to be made
whole under the Back Pay Act. Respondent's reliance on U.S. v. Testan, is misplaced. While the
Court held that neither the Classification Act nor the Back Pay Act created a
right to backpay for a period of wrongful classification, grievants here did
not claim their positions were wrongly classified. Rather, they claimed they
had improperly been denied promotions, premised upon their performance of the
duties of a properly classified but higher graded position. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, 35 FLRA 542, 551. Respondent's claim that promotions could not have been made because the
requisite vacancies did not exist is likewise misplaced. The record will not
support such finding. Even if it did, in an earlier case which, interestingly,
involves these same parties, the Authority rejected this very contention New
Cumberland Army Depot, 21 FLRA 968, 971.(8) Respondent is, however, correct as concerns the matter of the
duration of the backpay agreed upon, which may only be justified on the theory
that the grievants were entitled to temporary promotions based upon
Article 16, Section 5 of the collective bargaining agreement.
5 CFR 335 § 102(f)(1) limits temporary promotions to
two years absent specific authorization by OPM. Again, in New Cumberland
Army Depot, 21 FLRA 968, 972, the Authority held that Agencies
may temporarily promote an employee for more than two years only with the
formal approval of OPM, pursuant to the above-noted regulation and FPM
Chapter 335, subchapter 1-5. The Authority accordingly modified the
Arbitrator's award, and directed the Activity to request that OPM formally
authorize it to award the grievant a retroactive temporary promotion with
backpay for that part of the Arbitrator's award which exceeded two years. Finally, interest is required under the amended terms of the Back Pay
Act. As this was a settlement, interest should be computed for the period
beginning with the January 24, 1992 repudiation of the agreement and ending not
more than 30 days before the date on which payment is made. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent by such repudiation of the
grievance settlement agreement violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
Statute, and I recommend that the Authority issue the following: ORDER Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's
that Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Distribution Region East, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to honor and abide by a grievance settlement agreement
reached with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004,
the exclusive representative of certain of its employees, requiring payment to
the employees named therein of the backpay due them or for the failure to give
them contractually mandated temporary promotions. (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or
Statute: (a) In accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596,
make whole each of the employees names in the grievance settlement agreement
for the loss of pay and benefits each suffered during the first two years of
the agreed-upon period of underpayment, and request that the Office of
Personnel Management formally authorize it to award each such employee a
retroactive temporary promotion with backpay for any remaining years recognized
in the grievance settlement agreement. (b) Post at its New Cumberland, Pennsylvania facilities where
bargaining unit employees represented by the American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 2004, are located, copies of the attached Notice on forms
Regulations, notify the Regional Director of the Boston Region, 99 Summer
Street, Suite 1500, Boston, MA 02110-1200, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as
to what steps have been taken to comply herewith. Issued, Washington, DC, May 25, 1994 _______________________________JOHN H. FENTON Chief
Administrative Law Judge NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED