Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v64/64-93.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 16:38:43
Document Index: 584350955

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7122', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 16', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 335', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 7121', '§ 335', '§ 335', '§ 335', '§ 335', '§ 335', '§ 335', '§ 335']

You are hereHome [Decision Number] Social Security Administration, Port St. Lucie District, Port St. Lucie, Florida (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2014 (Union)
64 FLRA No. 93 FEDERAL
0-AR-4356
matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Barney
O. Spurlock, Jr., filed by the Agency under § 7122 of the Federal Service
Authority’s Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency’s
exceptions. The Arbitrator found that the Agency violated
the parties’ agreement by failing to temporarily promote the grievants, and he
awarded the grievants backpay for a period of approximately three years. For
the reasons discussed below, we deny the exceptions in part, grant them in
part, and modify the award of backpay.
The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by failing
to temporarily promote the grievants, two GS-8 Service Representatives, to GS-9
Claims Representative positions. The dispute was unresolved and was submitted
to arbitration. At the
hearing, the Agency argued that the grievance was not arbitrable because it
concerned classification within the meaning of § 7121(c)(5) of the
Statute. See Award at 3. The Arbitrator asked the parties to
address this issue in their post-hearing briefs. Id. As the parties
could not agree on the issues to be resolved, the Arbitrator framed them as
1. While assigned to the Appeals function and the Medical Continuing
Disability Review (CDR) function in the Port St. Lucie District Office, did
[the grievants] perform work of a higher graded position (Claims Representative
GS-9) on a regular and recurring basis in excess of [twenty-five] percent of
their time for a period in excess of thirty days?
2. If they did so, are they entitled to a Temporary Promotion and payment
at the higher rate of the Claims Representative GS-9 under the provisions of
Article 26, [§] 16 of the [parties’ agreement]?[[1]]
In his award,
the Arbitrator rejected the Agency’s claim that the grievance raised issues of
classification, within the meaning of § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute, and
determined that the grievance was arbitrable. Id. at 8. In particular,
the Arbitrator noted that, prior to the hearing, both parties treated the
dispute as one involving temporary promotion. Id. With regard to
the merits of the grievance, the Arbitrator found that, from June 2001 until
approximately April 2004, the Agency assigned the two grievants to the CDR
Unit, where they supported the Claims Representatives with appeals and CDR
functions. Id. at 3. The Arbitrator determined that, during this time,
the grievants were the only Service Representatives performing duties in the
CDR Unit, which was otherwise composed of Claims Representatives who are at
level GS-9 or above. Id. Based on the testimony of Agency witnesses,
the Arbitrator found that the grievants fully performed six, and partially
performed three, of the fifteen enumerated Claims Representative duties. Id. at 15. The Arbitrator also found that the grievants had received the same
training as Claims Representatives and that the grievants were replaced by
Claims Representatives when they were absent from work. Id. at 3-4. Further, the Arbitrator found that, when one of the grievants was transferred
to another location in April 2004, she was replaced by a Claims
Representative. Id. at 14. The Arbitrator also found that, after the
grievants left the CDR Unit, all of the Service Representatives were
temporarily promoted to GS-9 to receive training in the handling of appeals. Id. In addition,
the Arbitrator determined that the Agency did not effectively refute the
evidence presented by the grievants that they performed duties of the higher-graded
position more than twenty-five percent of the time for longer than thirty
days. Id. at 15. Therefore, the Arbitrator found that the Agency
violated Article 26, § 16 of the parties’ agreement by failing to temporarily
promote the grievants. Id. The Arbitrator awarded the grievants the
difference between the rates of pay for GS-8 and GS-9 from the time of their
assignment to the CDR Unit in June 2001 until they left around April 2004. Id. III. Positions of the Parties
contends that the Arbitrator erroneously disregarded the Agency’s claim that
the grievance was barred by § 7121(c) of the Statute. Exceptions
at 4. The Agency argues that, because jurisdictional claims under
§ 7121(c) of the Statute may be raised at any time, the Arbitrator wrongly
“barred” the Agency from making this argument for the first time at the
arbitration hearing. Id. at 5. The Agency
also contends that the award is contrary to § 7121(c) of the Statute
because the dispute involves the determination of the proper grade level of the
duties performed by the grievants, which is a classification issue. Id. at 6. The Agency asserts that the disputed assignments were permanent and that
the Arbitrator ordered the Agency to “reclassify the positions” of the
grievants. Id. at 7.
Agency argues that the award of backpay for approximately three years is
contrary to law. The Agency argues that, under 5 C.F.R.
§ 335.103(c), backpay for temporary promotions of more than 120 days cannot
be awarded in the absence of competitive procedures.[2] Id. at 8-9 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Ralph H. Johnson
Med. Ctr., Charleston, S.C., 60 FLRA 46, 50 (2004) (VA Charleston)). According to the Agency, the positions occupied by the grievants were not open
for competitive hiring and, therefore, the backpay awarded by the Arbitrator
should have been limited to 120 days. Exceptions at 9.
The Union asserts that the Arbitrator did not preclude the Agency from making a classification
argument. Opp’n at 2. In support of this assertion, the Union contends that
the Arbitrator allowed the Agency to make an oral argument at the hearing,
allowed both parties to address the issue in post-hearing briefs, and addressed
the issue in his award. Id. at 2-3.
The Union also asserts that the award is not contrary to § 7121(c) of the Statute. According to the Union, the award involves temporary promotion rather than
classification. Id. at 4. In this regard, the Union contends that the
Arbitrator did not consider the permanently assigned duties of the grievants,
but addressed only whether they temporarily performed higher-level duties. Id. at 5.
the Agency’s backpay argument, the Union requests that the Authority reconsider
its holding in VA Charleston that backpay for a noncompetitive temporary
promotion is limited to 120 days. Id. at 8. Alternatively, the Union
requests that the Authority remand this matter to the Arbitrator so that the
Union can establish a “basis for concluding that the Arbitrator intended the
award to encompass” a second 120-day temporary promotion for one of the
grievants. Id. at 11 (quoting VA Charleston, 60 FLRA at
50). In support of its request, the Union claims that, in June 2003, one
grievant was absent from work for over a week due to illness, that she was
replaced by a GS-9 Claims Representative during that time, and that the
Arbitrator could find that a new 120-day period began when the grievant
returned to work. Opp’n at 11.
the Arbitrator failed to consider the Agency’s classification argument.
asserts that the Arbitrator erroneously failed to consider the classification
argument that the Agency raised at the arbitration hearing. Exceptions at
4-5. We construe this assertion as an argument that the Arbitrator exceeded
his authority. Arbitrators exceed their authority when they fail to resolve an
disregard specific limitations on their authority, or award relief to those not
encompassed within the grievance. See AFGE, Local 1617, 51 FLRA
1645, 1647 (1996). Despite the Agency’s assertion to the contrary, the
Arbitrator considered -- but rejected -- the Agency’s classification argument. In this regard, the Arbitrator asked the parties to address the issue of
arbitrability in their post-hearing briefs, and he referenced the parties’
arguments on that issue when he reached his decision that the grievance concerned
temporary promotion. Id. at 3, 7-9. As the premise of the Agency’s
assertion is incorrect, we deny this exception.
the award is contrary to § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute.
exception and the award de novo. E.g., NTEU, Chapter 24, 50 FLRA
330, 332 (1995). In applying the standard of de novo review, the
Authority assesses whether the arbitrator’s legal conclusion is consistent with
the applicable standard of law. NFFE, Local 1437, 53 FLRA 1703, 1710
Under § 7121(c)(5) of the
Statute, grievances concerning “the classification of any position which does
not result in the reduction in grade or pay of an employee” are excluded from the
coverage of negotiated grievance procedures. Thus, arbitrators are barred from
resolving grievances concerning position classification. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
60 FLRA 62, 64 (2004). The Authority has construed the term “classification” to mean analyzing and identifying a position
and placing it in a class according to the position-classification
plan established by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), pursuant to
5 U.S.C. chapter 51. Id. (citations omitted). Consequently, when
the substance of a grievance concerns whether a grievant is entitled to a
permanent promotion based on the grade level of his or her duties, the
grievance concerns classification and is, therefore,
barred by § 7121(c)(5). See LIUNA, Local 28, 56 FLRA 324, 326
n.2 (2000) (Member Cabaniss concurring). However, a grievance is not barred by
§ 7121(c)(5) where the substance of the grievance concerns whether the
grievant is entitled to a temporary promotion (1) under
a collective bargaining agreement (2) by reason of having performed the
established duties of a higher-graded position. See U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Med Ctr., Asheville, N.C., 59 FLRA 605, 608 (2004) (VA Asheville). In this case,
the grievance, as well as the issues framed by the Arbitrator, address whether
the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by denying the grievants temporary
promotions. Award at 2, 9. The Arbitrator interpreted the parties’
agreement to require temporary promotions for employees who perform
higher-graded duties for more than twenty-five percent of the time for longer
than thirty days. Id. at 15. In rendering his award, the
Arbitrator confined his analysis and conclusions to resolving this contractual
issue. Specifically, he assessed whether the grievants were performing the
previously established duties of GS-9 Claims Representatives, and he found that
the grievants fully performed six, and partially performed three, of those
duties. Id. He also found that GS-9 employees, rather than GS-8
employees, replaced the grievants when they were absent. Id. at 3-4,
14. The Arbitrator did not consider whether the grievants should have been
permanently promoted and “did not evaluate the grade level of the duties
permanently assigned to and performed by” the grievants, both of which would
constitute classification. VA Asheville, 59 FLRA at 608. Therefore,
as the Arbitrator did not resolve a classification matter within the meaning of
§ 7121(c)(5), we deny the exception.
the backpay award is contrary to 5 C.F.R. § 335.103(c).
OPM has
interpreted 5 C.F.R. § 335.103(c) as requiring that time-limited
promotions of more than 120 days be made pursuant to
competition under an agency merit-promotion plan. VA Charleston, 60 FLRA at 49. Deferring to this interpretation, the Authority has
concluded that a retroactive temporary promotion of more than 120
days cannot be awarded in the absence of competitive procedures. Id. In accordance with this interpretation, backpay for a retroactive,
noncompetitive temporary promotion that exceeds 120
days is inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 335.103(c). Id.
awarded the grievants backpay for a period of almost three years. There is no
indication from his findings, and the Union does not allege, that the temporary
promotions were made based on competitive procedures. Therefore, VA Charleston
supports a conclusion that the Arbitrator’s backpay remedy requires
modification because, to the extent that it exceeds 120 days, it is deficient
as contrary to 5 C.F.R. § 335.103(c). Because we decline the Union’s
request to reconsider VA Charleston, we grant the Agency’s exception and
modify the backpay award to 120 days for each grievant.
The Union argues that the award should be remanded to the Arbitrator to determine whether one
of the grievants is entitled to an additional 120-day period of back pay. Opp’n
at 11. However, the Arbitrator found that the grievants were assigned to work
in the CDR Unit in 2001, and although he noted that the grievants were
sometimes absent from work, he did not find that their assignments were ever
renewed. Award at 4. Thus, as in VA Charleston, there is no “basis for
concluding that the Arbitrator intended the award to encompass” more than one
temporary promotion for each grievant. VA Charleston, 60 FLRA at 50. Accordingly, we deny the Union’s request for remand.
Agency’s exceptions in part, grant them in part, and modify the award of
backpay, consistent with the conclusions herein.
The text of this provision was not included in the documents submitted to the
5 C.F.R. § 335.103(c) states, in pertinent part:
(1) Competitive actions.
Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, competitive
procedures in agency promotion plans apply to all promotions under
§ 335.102 of this part and to the following actions: (i) Time-limited
promotions under § 335.102(f) of this part for more than 120 days to higher
graded positions . . . .