Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v64/64-82.html
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 05:14:03
Document Index: 42993017

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7122', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7116', '§ 7121', '§ 7118', '§ 7122', '§ 7116', '§ 7116']

64 FLRA No. 82 FEDERAL
0-AR-4244
exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Joshua M. Javits filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the
The Arbitrator found that the
Agency committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) under § 7116(a)(1) and (6) of
the Statute by failing to follow a Decision and Order of the Federal Service
Impasses Panel (FSIP Order). The Arbitrator held that the Agency did not
violate § 7116(a)(5) of the Statute, however, because there was no requirement
in the FSIP Order that the parties bargain. For the reasons that follow, we
As part of the Agency’s reorganization of its
Case Processing and Insolvency units, the Agency determined that a reduction in
force (RIF) was necessary. In January 2004, the Agency notified the Union of its plans. See Award at 2-3. The parties entered into negotiations
regarding the impact and implementation of the proposed RIF, but were unable to
reach agreement. Id. at 3. To resolve the dispute, the Agency
requested assistance from the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP). Id. The FSIP directed the parties to resume negotiations with the assistance
of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and, if agreement was not
reached by January 31, 2005, to submit their “last best offers” and a written
statement of positions to the FSIP by February 11, 2005. Id. The
parties were unable to reach full agreement by that date; as a result, they
submitted their “last best offers” to the FSIP. Among other things, the
parties disputed the Union’s request for Equal Employment Opportunity data (EEO
data) to perform an adverse impact analysis. Id. at 4. In March 2005, the FSIP issued its
Decision and Order, directing the parties to adopt the Agency’s “last best
offer” regarding this issue.[1] Id. at 5. The FSIP Order directed the Agency to provide the EEO data
to the Union by May 5, 2005. Id. It is undisputed that the Agency did
not provide this information to the Union by this date. Id.
The RIF occurred on September 30,
2005. Id. As a result of the RIF, 194 Case Processing and Insolvency
employees were separated from the Agency and a further 1450 employees left the
Agency voluntarily, took early retirement, resigned with buy-outs, or were
assigned to other positions within the Agency. Id. at 6. In October 2005, more than two
weeks after the RIF was implemented, and five months after the deadline for
providing the EEO data, the Union filed a grievance regarding the Agency’s
failure to provide the EEO data as directed by the FSIP Order. Id. at 6. The Union claimed that the Agency’s
failure to provide this information constituted a ULP in violation of § 7116(a)(1),
(5), and (6) of the Statute.[2] Id. The grievance could not be
resolved. As relevant here, the parties submitted the following stipulated
issues to arbitration:
the Agency commit an ULP under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1), (5) and (6) by violating
the March 25, 2005 Decision and Order of the Federal Service[] Impasse[s]
so, what shall be the remedy?
Id. at 2. The Arbitrator found that the Agency had failed
to comply with the FSIP Order and that such failure, even if unintentional,
constituted a ULP under § 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute. Id. at 21-22 (citing U.S.
Dep’t of the Treasury, IRS, 23 FLRA 774 (1996); Nat’l Guard Bureau,
47 FLRA 1175 (1993)). However, the Arbitrator determined that such failure did
not constitute a ULP under § 7116(a)(5). Id. at 22-23.
The Arbitrator also held that a status quo
ante remedy was inappropriate. Id. at 24. The Arbitrator held that the appropriateness of a status
quo ante remedy “must be determined on a case by case basis, carefully
balancing the nature and circumstances of the particular violation against the
remedy.” Id. (citing Fed. Corr. Inst., 8 FLRA 604 (1982). The
Arbitrator stated that the following factors should be considered in performing
this balancing: (1) whether and when notice was given
to the Union; (2) whether and when the Union requested bargaining; (3) the
willfulness of the Agency’s conduct in failing to discharge its bargaining
obligation; (4) the nature and extent of the adverse impact on unit employees;
and (5) whether and to what degree a status quo ante remedy would disrupt or
impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency’s operations.
Id. The Arbitrator found that the
Agency had not intentionally withheld the information and stated that this fact
“clearly mitigates” the Agency’s conduct. Id. at 8, 24-25. Also, the
Arbitrator found that the Union did not grieve the matter with “clean hands,”
noting that the Union failed to complain about the EEO data until after the RIF
had been implemented, rather than immediately after the Agency failed to comply
with the FSIP Order. Id. at 25. The Arbitrator also determined
that a status quo ante remedy would impair significantly the efficiency
and effectiveness of, and be unduly burdensome to, the Agency’s operations. Id. at 25-26. To remedy the Agency’s violation,
the Arbitrator ordered the Agency to cease and desist from ignoring all future
FSIP orders. Id. at 27. In addition, the Arbitrator directed the
Agency to post a notice acknowledging its unlawful conduct on all Agency notice
boards for 60 days. Id. III. Positions of the Parties
Arbitrator exceeded his authority by rendering an award that is contrary to
law. Exceptions at 5. The Union argues that the remedy for a ULP under the
Statute is status quo ante relief and that the Arbitrator’s failure to
provide such a remedy renders his award contrary to law. Id. at 6 (citing
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Safford, Ariz., 35 FLRA
431, 445-46 (1990)). Further, the Union asserts that, if
status quo ante relief is inappropriate, the Arbitrator should
have imposed a “Transmarine” remedy instead. Id. at 7 (citing Transmarine
Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968)). According to the Union, under Transmarine,
“where an [e]mployer commit[s] an unfair labor practice while bargaining with
the exclusive representative over a RIF or layoffs due to a sale or shut[-]down
of operations, the appropriate remedy [is] to order retroactive bargaining and
reinstate the employees for the period of time that the parties are engaged in
retroactive bargaining[.]” Id. Applying that standard here, the
Union contends that the employees who were separated in the RIF are entitled to
reinstatement and back pay for the period of time that the RIF would have been
delayed had the Agency complied with the FSIP Order. Id. at 9-10
(citing Gannett, Inc., 333 NLRB 355 (2001)). The Union asserts that, had the FSIP
Order been followed, the RIF would have been delayed at least thirty-five
workdays; accordingly, the Union alleges that the RIF-separated employees are
entitled, at a minimum, to be placed on the Agency’s payroll for that amount of
time. Id. at 10. The Union contends that this temporary
reinstatement would not be unduly disruptive to the Agency as it “would require
nothing more than the Agency placing [the] employees back on the payroll for .
. . 35 days.” Id. at 11. The Union alleges that the Arbitrator
erred because he failed to consider this more limited alternative remedy. Id. Additionally, the Union argues that the remedy provided by the award should be
overturned because it “encourages [a]gencies to violate their collective
bargaining obligations.” Id. at 11-12. B. Agency’s Opposition The Agency argues that the Arbitrator’s award is
not contrary to law and that the Union has “failed to identify any legal
authority which compelled the Arbitrator to order the remedies requested by the
Union.” Opposition at 11. The Agency asserts that the Authority has held
that arbitrators have broad discretion in fashioning remedies and that
arbitrators are not required to provide remedies for every violation of a
collective bargaining agreement. Id. (citing Def. Sec. Assistance
Dev. Ctr., 60 FLRA 292, 294 (2004); AFGE, Local 2274, 57 FLRA 586,
589 (2001)). As such, the Agency argues that the Arbitrator’s award is not
contrary to law because it fails to impose a status quo ante remedy. Id. at 12-17. The Agency alleges that the Union
mischaracterizes the Arbitrator’s rationale for failing to award the status
quo ante remedy and that the Arbitrator did not “conclude that he was
somehow prohibited or precluded by law from awarding the Union’s requested
remedy.” Id. at 12 (citing NTEU, 48 FLRA 566, 570-71 (1993)). Instead, the Agency asserts that the Arbitrator “squarely” addressed the Union’s requested remedy and expressly decided not to grant it. Id. Further, the Agency contends that
the Union failed to identify any law that would compel the Arbitrator to issue
a status quo ante remedy. Id. at 13. The Agency argues
that both cases cited by the Union are not comparable because they did not involve
the test to be applied when determining whether a status quo ante remedy
is appropriate in arbitration. Id. at 15 (citing Exceptions at
7), 24-25. According to the Agency, the Authority has held that it will uphold
the remedy determinations of an arbitrator unless it can be shown that the
remedy is “a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly
be said to effectuate the policies of the [Statute].” Id. at 15, 16-17
(quoting NTEU, 48 FLRA at 572) (citation omitted). The Agency contends
that the Union failed to meet this “heavy burden.” Id. at 17. The
Agency further alleges that the Arbitrator’s findings regarding why a status
quo ante remedy was inappropriate in this case are supported by the record
and remain unchallenged by the Union. Id. at 17-24. Finally, the Agency argues that the
Arbitrator did not commit a legal error by failing to impose the Union’s requested Transmarine remedy. Id. at 25. Citing AFGE,
Gen. Comm., 28 FLRA 1028, 1029 (1987), the Agency asserts that the
Arbitrator is not required to consider or specifically address every remedy
requested by the Union. Id. at 27. Moreover, the Agency contends that
the Arbitrator acknowledged that the Union was requesting the Transmarine remedy,
thereby showing that the Arbitrator considered it. Id. at 26-27. IV. Analysis and Conclusions
exception and the award de novo. See NTEU, Chapter 24, 50 FLRA 330,
332 (1995) (citing U.S. Customs Serv. v. FLRA, 43 F.3d 682,
686-87 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). In applying the standard of de novo review,
the Authority assesses whether an arbitrator’s legal conclusions are consistent
with the applicable standard of law. See U.S. Dep’t of Def., Dep’ts of the
Army & the Air Force, Ala. Nat’l Guard, Northport, Ala., 55 FLRA 37, 40
underlying factual findings. See id.
When a grievance under § 7121 of the
Statute involves an alleged ULP, the arbitrator must apply the same standards
and burdens that would be applied by an administrative law judge in a ULP
proceeding under § 7118 of the Statute. In a grievance alleging a ULP by an
agency, the union bears the burden of proving the elements of the alleged ULP
by a preponderance of the evidence. See AFGE, Nat’l Border Patrol Council,
54 FLRA 905, 909 (1998). However, as in other arbitration cases, including
those where violations of law are alleged, the Authority defers to an
arbitrator’s findings of fact. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Patent
& Trademark Office, 52 FLRA 358, 367 (1996). In this regard, where
judgment and discretion of the arbitrator in the determination of the remedy. NTEU,
48 FLRA at 571. Unless the party excepting to the arbitrator’s
determination of remedy establishes that a particular remedy is compelled by
the Statute, we review the remedy determinations of arbitrators in ULP
the federal courts of appeals. Id. at 571-72. More specifically, we
uphold the arbitrator’s remedy determination unless the determination is “a patent
attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to
effectuate the policies of the [Statute].” Id. at 572 (quoting NTEU
v. FLRA, 910 F.2d 964, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)) (emphasis in
The Union makes no claim that the
remedy awarded by the Arbitrator was “a patent attempt to achieve ends
other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the
[Statute].” Id. Rather, the Union merely argues that the
Authority would have awarded a status quo ante remedy if it had been
determining the remedy in the first instance. However, as noted, this is
not the standard that the Authority applies in resolving such a claim. Moreover, we find that the
Arbitrator did not err in failing to award the Transmarine remedy. As
the Agency contends, an arbitrator is not required to consider or specifically
address every remedy set forth by a party. See AFGE, 28 FLRA at
1029. See also NTEU, NTEU, Chapter 33, 44 FLRA 252, 276 (1992). Furthermore,
the Arbitrator did acknowledge that the Union was requesting the Transmarine
remedy, thereby showing that the Arbitrator considered it. Award at 14. Accordingly, we find that
the remedy awarded is not contrary to law and deny the Union’s exception. B. The award is not contrary to public
Under § 7122(a)(2) of the Statute, an award will be found deficient
on grounds similar to those applied by federal courts in private sector labor
relations cases. In the private sector, courts will find an arbitration award
deficient when the award is contrary to public policy. However, the Authority
has held that this ground is extremely narrow. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, Long
Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, Cal., 48 FLRA 612, 618 (1993). In
asserted must be “explicit,” “well-defined,” and “dominant,” W.R. Grace
& Co. v. Rubber Workers, 461 U.S. 757, 766 (1983), and a violation of
the policy “must be clearly shown.” United Paperworkers Int’l Union v.
Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 43 (1987). We construe the Union’s argument
that the award encourages agencies to violate their collective bargaining
obligations because the award fails to implement a status quo ante remedy
as an exception that the award is contrary to public policy. Exceptions at 11-12. A failure to order status quo ante relief,
however, does not by itself make an award contrary to public policy. Moreover,
the Union has failed to identify a policy requiring a status quo ante remedy
in these circumstances. Indeed, the Authority previously has held that, where
a status quo ante remedy is inappropriate, other “traditional” remedies,
including a cease-and-desist order and a posting of a notice of the ULP – such
as those ordered by the Arbitrator here – are also available. Air Force
Logistics Command, Warner Robins Air Logistics Ctr., Robins Air Force Base,
Ga., 53 FLRA 1664, 1671 (1998) (citing F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Cheyenne, Wyo., 52 FLRA 149, 161 (1996)). Accordingly, we find that the award
is not contrary to public policy and deny the Union’s exception.
[1] The Agency’s “last best offer” was:
Employer will provide [the Union] with EEO data for the impacted Case
Processing and [I]nsolvency employees.
1. The data will be provided to [the
Union] within ten (10) workdays of the effective date of this agreement.
2. The data provided to the [U]nion
will include race, age (over/under 40 years), national origin, gender, and
disability status of impacted employees.
3. Within fifteen (15) workdays of
receipt, [the Union] will provide the results of any adverse impact studies
conducted utilizing the data.
Award at 5. [2]
5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1), (5), and (6) provides, in relevant part, that it is an
unfair labor practice for an agency: (1) to interfere with, restrain, or
(5) to refuse to consult or
negotiate in good faith with a labor organization as required by this chapter;
(6) to fail or refuse to cooperate
in impasse procedures and impasse decisions as required by this chapter[.]
5 U.S.C. § 7116.