Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v64/64-059.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-26 03:21:47
Document Index: 645286573

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7122', '§ 7513', '§ 7122', '§ 7513', '§ 7513', '§ 7513', '§ 7513', '§ 7513', '§ 4303', '§ 4303', '§ 4303', '§ 3502', '§ 3502', '§ 7513']

You are hereHome [Decision Number] United States Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 131 (Union)&nbsp;
64 FLRA No. 59 FEDERAL
0-AR-4240
exceptions to an award of Arbitrator William H. Holley, Jr. filed by the Agency
under § 7122 (a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the
Agency violated the parties’ agreement by failing to properly consider the
grievant for a higher-graded position and directed the Agency to return to the
status quo that existed when the vacancy was posted and to re-run the
deny the Agency’s exceptions.
Arbitrator’s Award The Agency posted
an internal vacancy announcement for a Wage Leader (WL)-8, Gardener Leader
position. The Agency expanded the announcement to permit external candidates. The grievant, an internal candidate, and an external candidate were interviewed
for the position. Award at 2. The external candidate was selected. Id. The Union filed a grievance alleging that the
Agency had violated Article 22 of the parties’ agreement and sought an “[u]pgrade”
for the grievant to a WL-8 salary or equivalent.[2] Id. In response, the Agency acknowledged that it had committed a
procedural error in violation of Article 22. To remedy the error, the Agency
agreed to grant the grievant priority consideration for the next promotional
opportunity up to the rate of a WL-8 or equivalent for which he is qualified
and wishes to be considered. Id. at 3. The Union invoked arbitration and
the parties stipulated to the following issue: “[w]hether there was a violation
of Article 22 of the [parties’] agreement . . . [,] in particular, Section 8,
paragraph C and Section 12, paragraph D.” Id. at 6. The Arbitrator considered this case
to be “unusual” as the Agency admitted that it had committed a procedural error
and agreed to provide the grievant with priority consideration to remedy the
error. Id. at 20-21. The Arbitrator reviewed Article 22, Section 13 of
the parties’ agreement and found that “[t]he parties have negotiated and agreed
to [the provision],” which provides “a potential remedy for a contractual
violation (procedural error).” Id. at 22. The Arbitrator further found
that, where there are procedural errors and where it is not clear whether the
grievant would have been selected but for the error, “a common remedy is to
declare the position vacant and order management to reevaluate all
candidates.” Id. (citation omitted). The Arbitrator concluded that the
Agency violated Article 22, Sections 7, 8, and 12 of the parties’ agreement
when it committed a procedural error in filling the Gardener Leader position. As a remedy, the Arbitrator directed the Agency to return to the status that
existed prior to the filling of the vacant position and to re-run the selection
in accordance with Article 22. Id. at 22-23. III. Positions of the Parties
The Agency contends that the award fails to draw
its essence from Article 22, Section 13 of the parties’ agreement. Exceptions
at 1. The Agency alleges that, under that provision, the remedy for
employees who fail to receive proper consideration for selection due to
“procedural, regulatory, or program violation” is priority consideration for a
future vacancy. Id. The Agency argues that the language of the
parties’ agreement is clear and that there is no need to look outside the four
corners of the provision to ascertain the parties’ intentions. Id. at 2. The Agency asserts that, as the Arbitrator found that the grievant failed
to receive proper consideration for selection, he should have ordered priority
consideration. Id. The Agency also alleges that the
award is “too ambiguous [as] to make compliance possible.” Id. at 2. Further, the Agency contends that the award is contrary to law – specifically,
5 U.S.C. §§ 7513, 4303, or 3502 – because the Agency has no authority to
either return the selectee to his former position or involuntarily separate
him.[3]
Id. at 1. B. Union’s Opposition The Union rejects the Agency’s claim that the
Agency does not have the authority to implement a status quo ante remedy
and argues that “[s]imply claiming that [it] cannot undo [its] error” does not
provide a basis for overturning the award. Opp’n at 1.
With respect to the Agency’s essence exception,
the Union argues that priority consideration is a “contractually justified
remedy” only if the Agency exercised good faith in the commission of the
procedural errors. Id. at 2. The Union also contends that the award
should be upheld because the grievant was equally qualified for the position as
the selectee. Id. IV. Analysis and Conclusions
The Authority may set aside arbitration awards
only on certain specified grounds, including, as relevant here, “grounds
relations[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a)(2). The Federal courts’ standard in
reviewing arbitral contract interpretations is highly deferential, as evidenced
by the Supreme Court’s statement that “as long as the arbitrator is even
arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his
authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious errors does not
suffice to overturn his [error].” United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO
v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). Consistent with these principles, the Authority
from the parties’ agreement only when the appealing party establishes that the
of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the
or (4) evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement. See U.S. Dep’t of
Labor (OSHA), 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990). The Authority and the courts
defer to arbitrators in this context “because it is the arbitrator’s construction
of the agreement for which the parties have bargained.” Id. at 576. The Agency cites Article 22, Section 13 of the
parties’ agreement, which provides, in pertinent part: “For the purpose of
this article, a priority consideration is the bona fide consideration for
noncompetitive selection given to an employee as the result of a previous
failure to properly consider the employee for selection because of procedural,
regulatory, or program violation.” Award at 8. The Arbitrator interpreted
this wording as providing priority consideration as “a potential remedy”
-- i.e., not the sole remedy -- for a contractual violation of procedural
error.” Award at 22 (emphasis added). Nothing in Article 22, Section 13 states
that priority consideration is the only remedy available or that rerunning a
selection action is not a permissible remedy. As such, the Agency does not
demonstrate that the award is irrational, unfounded, implausible, or in
manifest disregard of the agreement. Accordingly, we deny the Agency’s essence
exception.[4] B. Incomplete, Ambiguous, or Contradictory
The Agency also alleges that the award is “too
ambiguous as to make compliance possible.” Exceptions at 2. We construe this
as a claim that the award is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory. The
Authority will find an award deficient when it is incomplete, ambiguous, or so
contradictory as to make implementation of the award impossible. See, e.g.,
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin., S.E. Dist., 40 FLRA
937, 943 (1991). The Arbitrator directed the Agency to return to
the status quo that existed prior to the filling of the vacant position and to
re-run the selection in accordance with Article 22 of the parties’ agreement. Award
at 22-23. The Agency provides no basis for finding that this direction is
incomplete, ambiguous, contradictory, or impossible to implement. Accordingly,
the Agency has not demonstrated that the award is deficient on this ground, and
The Agency contends
that the award is contrary to 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513, 4303, and 3502. When a party’s
exceptions challenge an award’s consistency with law, the Authority reviews the
exceptions de novo. NTEU, Chapter 24, 50 FLRA 330, 332 (1995)
evaluates whether the arbitrator’s legal conclusions are consistent with the
applicable standard of law. See NFFE, Local 1437, 53 FLRA
1703, 1710 (1998). In making that evaluation, the Authority defers to the
arbitrator’s underlying factual findings. Id.
5 U.S.C. § 7513 establishes that adverse actions
such as removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, reductions in grade or
pay, or furloughs for 30 or fewer days must be based on “such cause as will
promote the efficiency of the service.” 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a). The Authority has
held that neither vacating a selection nor rerunning a selection action
constitutes an adverse action within the meaning of § 7513. See SSA, 58
FLRA 739, 742 (2003). Consistent with this precedent, § 7513 does not apply in
this case, and the Agency’s reliance on it provides no basis for finding the
5 U.S.C. § 4303 addresses “[a]ctions based on
unacceptable performance” and provides, in pertinent part, that “an agency may
reduce in grade or remove an employee for unacceptable performance.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 4303. The award does not concern unacceptable performance. Specifically, it
neither directs the Agency to take any actions based on unacceptable
performance nor precludes the Agency from taking such actions. Accordingly,
the Agency provides no basis for finding the award contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 4303.
Finally, 5 U.S.C. § 3502 concerns the “[o]rder
of retention” that applies when agencies conduct reductions-in-force (RIFs). This case does not involve a RIF, and there is no basis for finding that 5
U.S.C. § 3502 applies here. Accordingly, the Agency’s reliance on that statute
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the Agency’s
contrary-to-law exceptions. V. Decision
22, “Merit Promotion,” of the parties’ agreement provides, in relevant part: Section 8 – Vacancy Announcements and Areas of
. . . . C. Areas of Consideration:
First – Facilitywide . . . 1. This area may be more narrow or
expanded through mutual agreement.
2. Where evidence suggests that the
area of consideration is not expected to produce at least three qualified
candidates, it may be expanded. The vacancy announcement will identify the
expanded area of consideration. 3. For VA Headquarters unit
positions, GS-12 and above, the area of consideration may be expanded.
in all cases, (1, 2, and 3 above), first and full consideration shall be given
to any best qualified candidates within the facility (or more narrow area).
– Any other promotion candidate or candidates required to compete from other VA
Third – 1. Reassignments/demotions to
positions with higher known promotion potential.
2. Reinstatements to positions at a
higher grade or with higher known potential.
3. Transfers to positions at a higher
grade or with higher known potential. . . . . Section
12 – Selection
D. Management recognizes that it is
important for maintaining high morale to try to select from within the facility
when the candidates are equally qualified to those candidates available from outside
sources. Thus, management will agree to look closely at the relative
qualifications of candidates from outside and within and shall exercise good
faith in the selection. Section 13 – Priority Considerations
A. Definition – For the purpose of
regulatory, or program violation. Employees will receive one priority
consideration for each instance of improper consideration.
Award at 6-8.
Member Beck’s basis for dissent is set forth at footnote 4.
The relevant provisions of the parties’ agreement are set forth in the appendix
The pertinent wording of 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513, 4303, and 3502 is set forth infra.
For the following reason, Member Beck disagrees with the Majority that the
Agency’s essence exception should be denied. The remedial language in Article
22, Section 13 is specific and mandatory in setting forth the remedy for an
employee who is not properly considered for selection: “For the purpose of
this article, a priority selection is the bona fide consideration
for noncompetitive selection given to an employee as the result of a previous
failure to properly consider the employee for selection . . . ." Award
at 8 (emphasis added). With this language, the parties contemplated that
mistakes might sometimes be made in selecting employees for higher-graded
positions and expressly stated what the remedy should be in such instances. The Arbitrator’s remedy is incompatible with the plain wording of the provision
and does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement. See,
e.g., SSA, Office of Labor Mgmt. Relations, 60 FLRA 66, 67 (2004) (award
deficient as not representing plausible interpretation of agreement); U.S.
Small Bus. Admin., 55 FLRA 179, 182 (1999) (award deficient because
wording); U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, Okla. City Air Logistics Command,
Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., 48 FLRA 342, 348 (1993) (award deficient
because arbitrator’s interpretation of agreement was incompatible with its
plain wording).
For this reason, Member Beck would
grant the Agency’s essence exception and find it unnecessary to address the
remaining exceptions. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, Metro Det. Ctr., Guaynabo, P.R., 58 FLRA 553, 554 n.3 (2003); United
States Dep’t of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Serv., Del Rio Border
Patrol Sector, Tex., 45 FLRA 926, 933 (1992).