Office of Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Public Health Service and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 41 (Authority decision, May 14, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union’s exceptions to an arbitration award rejecting a grievance over a position abolishment and reassignment. 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 under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

The Public Health Service abolished an employee’s GS-15 position and assigned him to a GS-14 position. An arbitrator rejected claims that the reduction in force, retention rights, and refusal to detail him to an international organization violated applicable requirements. The union alleged errors involving disability accommodation and personnel rules. The Authority found no statutory basis to set aside the award and denied the exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union’s exceptions denied; grievance denial stands.
• Key point: The union’s objections to the arbitrator’s factual and legal conclusions did not establish a defect in the award.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p38 ]

27:0038(9)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 9

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR HEALTH, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE
Agency

and

LOCAL 41, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1294

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator James P. Whyte filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievance alleged that in the course of abolishing the grievant's GS-15 position and assigning him to a GS-14 position, the Agency violated reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations; denied him statutory retention rights; and reneged on a promise to approve a request to detail him to a United Nations agency for two years.

The Arbitrator rejected the allegations. The Arbitrator essentially found that: the RIF was justified; the grievant was not singled out for discriminatory treatment; the Agency properly applied RIF regulations in effect when the grievant's position was abolished; the Union failed to establish that the grievant was deprived of any retention rights; and the Agency did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in determining that the grievant was not qualified for certain GS-15 positions. Finally, the Arbitrator found that the Union failed to establish that the Agency was required to detail the grievant to an international organization as a reasonable accomodation for an asserted handicapping condition caused by work-related stress. The Arbitrator determined that a preference for work in an international organization does not require detail to that organization. Consequently, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Exceptions

In its exceptions, the Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is inconsistent with various laws and regulations concerning accomodations for handicapping conditions, RIFs, details to international organizations and performance evaluation.

IV. Decision

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute, that is, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. See, for example, U.S. Department of Labor and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12, 17 FLRA 952 (1985) (exceptions attempting to relitigate the merits of a case before the Authority and constituting nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's findings of fact and reasoning and conclusions provide no basis for finding the award deficient). See also American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12 and U.S. Department of Labor, 24 FLRA No. 19 (1986), slip op. at 5 (where the Authority noted a Federal court decision, Carty v. Carlin, 623 F.Supp. 1181, 1188-89 (D. Md. 1985), holding that reasonable accomodation of a qualified handicapped employee does not require the transfer or reassignment of the employee to another position).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C. May 14, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY