U.S. Naval Ordnance Station and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 830 (Authority decision, October 22, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority sets aside an arbitration award granting an employee overtime pay. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), orders involving arbitral awards are generally excluded from judicial review unless they involve an unfair labor practice. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

A general purpose welder claimed overtime that the Naval Ordnance Station assigned to an electron beam welder assisting another operator. An arbitrator found the employee qualified for the assistant task and awarded eight hours of overtime pay. The Authority set the award aside because management had determined that the employee lacked the required qualifications. It held that the arbitrator could not replace management's judgment about the qualifications needed to assign the work.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management right to assign work under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Eight hour overtime pay award set aside.
• Key point: Management determines work qualifications and whether an employee meets them.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v23 p671 ]

23:0671(88)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

23 FLRA No. 88

U.S. NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION
Activity

and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
LOCAL LODGE 830
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1123

DECISION

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator W. Thomas Mulhall filed by the Department of the Navy (the Agency) under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD

A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration on the issue of whether the Activity violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by its assignment of overtime. The grievant was a general purpose welder and the overtime to which he claimed entitlement had been assigned to two electron beam welders because the overtime work was scheduled to be done on electron beam welding equipment. Specifically, one of the electron beam welders was assigned to operate the equipment and the other was assigned to assist. At arbitration the Activity explained that the grievant was not considered for the disputed overtime assignment because as a general purpose welder he was not qualified to perform the electron beam welding work. The Union disputed the Activity's determination that the employee assigned to assist the primary welder must also be a qualified electron beam welder. The Union maintained that the assistant performed duties for which the grievant was entirely qualified and argued that therefore the grievant was entitled to have been offered the disputed overtime assignment.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Union. He found that the record did not indicate that the duties of the assistant were of the same specialized nature required of the primary electron beam welder. To the contrary he found that the work performed by the assistant was completely within the skills of the grievant and that the grievant was qualified to perform the work. The Arbitrator ruled that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement provisions on the distribution of overtime, management was obligated to have offered the overtime work of assisting the operator of the electron beam welding equipment to the grievant. The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant was wrongfully deprived of the assignment. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance and awarded the grievant 8 hours of overtime pay.

III. EXCEPTIONS

As one of its exceptions, the Agency contends that the award is contrary to management's right to assign work in accordance with section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. Specifically, the Agency argues that the award substitutes the judgment of the Arbitrator for that of management in determining the qualifications necessary to perform certain work and in determining whether the grievant possessed those qualifications.

IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

We agree with the Agency. In United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2317, 23 FLRA No. 52 (1986), in which the arbitrator found, contrary to the determination of management, that the grievant had the skills necessary to perform the overtime work in dispute and ordered that the grievant be assigned such work, we concluded that the award was contrary to management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. More specifically, we found that the arbitrator had negated the exercise by management of the rights encompassed by section 7106(a)(2)(B) to establish qualifications and to determine whether particular employees meet those qualifications and, therefore, we set aside the award.

In this case we similarly conclude for the reasons set forth in Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia, that the award is contrary to management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). The grievant was not considered for the disputed overtime assignment because management had determined that he was not qualified. Thus, the Arbitrator in this case has negated the exercise by management of the rights to establish qualifications and to determine whether particular employees meet those qualifications. The Arbitrator has not merely enforced a procedure of the parties' collective bargaining agreement by which employees previously judged by management to be equally qualified will be selected to perform certain work. Instead, he has enforced the agreement to improperly interfere with management's right to assign work in accordance with section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.

V. DECISION

Accordingly, for these reasons, the Arbitrator's award is set aside.
/*/

Issued, Washington, D.C., October 22, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

(*) In view of this decision, it is not necessary that we address the Agency's other exceptions.