U.S. Navy Public Works Center and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Authority decision, May 29, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the Navy's exception to an arbitration award requiring reimbursement of a wage overpayment the employee had repaid. 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

A Navy employee continued receiving higher pay after his temporary promotion ended, although he repeatedly reported the error to his supervisor. The Navy required him to repay $315.28 and denied his request to waive the debt. An arbitrator found that the overpayment resulted from an administrative error and ordered the Navy to reimburse the employee. The Navy argued that the award conflicted with federal waiver law and regulations. The Authority denied the exception because the Navy showed no legal or regulatory conflict, only disagreement with the arbitrator's findings.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a); overpayment waiver under 5 U.S.C. § 5584(a) and 4 C.F.R. § 91.5(c).
• Outcome: Navy's exception denied; $315.28 reimbursement award stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's assessment of the overpayment facts did not establish that the award violated waiver law.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p156 ]

27:0156(30)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 30

U.S. NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
Agency

and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1304

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Alfred J. Goodman filed by the Agency 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 in this case concerned the Agency's erroneous overpayment of wages to the grievant and its subsequent decision to require reimbursement of the overpayment. The facts leading to this dispute are as follows.

On November 11, 1984, the grievant was temporarily promoted from Utility Systems Operator, Wage Grade 9 (WG-9), to Electric Power Controller, WG-10, for a period not to exceed one year. In May 1985 the grievant was notified that effective May 11, 1985, he was being returned to his former WG-9 position. However, the grievant continued to receive the WG-10 salary for over two months (until July 21, 1985) despite the fact that the grievant informed his general foreman about his overpayment on several occasions.

The Agency subsequently recognized that the appropriate paperwork had not been processed to make the necessary salary adjustment. On September 25, 1985, the grievant received a personnel action notice stating the effective date of the return to the WG-9 position as May 11, 1985. The grievant was also informed that he would be required to reimburse the $315.28 salary overpayment for the period May 11 through July 21, 1985. The grievant requested a waiver from the Navy Accounting and Finance Center of the requirement that he return the overpayment. The request was denied. The grievant made the reimbursement and filed a grievance to recover the amount.

The Arbitrator framed the issue before him as whether the Agency's decision to compel the grievant to reimburse the Agency for erroneous overpayment of salary violated the parties' agreement. The Arbitrator found that the grievant "openly, honestly, and reasonably attempted to apprise supervision of the overpayment error" (Arbitrator's Decision at 9-10), but was told by the general foreman not to worry about it. The Arbitrator found that it was clear that the overpayment was due to administrative error, and that the grievant had acted properly in reporting the erroneous salary overpayment and did not conceal the error or "fraudulently abscond with government funds." Arbitrator's Decision at 11. The Arbitrator concluded that in light of the facts in this case, the grievant was entitled to a waiver of the overpayment. Accordingly, he awarded the grievant a $315.28 reimbursement for the salary overpayment.

III. Exception

The Agency contends that the Arbitrator's award is contrary to law and Government-wide regulations, specifically 5 U.S.C. Section 5584 and 4 C.F.R. Section 91.5, as interpreted by the Comptroller General.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Under 5 U.S.C. Section 5584, claims against federal employees may under certain circumstances be waived when collection "would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States." 5 U.S.C. Section 5584(a). The Standards for Waiver of Claims for Erroneous Payment of Pay and Allowances (Standards for Waiver), 4 C.F.R. Sections 91.1-93.3, are the implementing regulations and are applicable Government-wide. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 225 and Department of the Army, USARRADCOM, Dover, New Jersey, 15 FLRA 607 (1984). Under those regulations, claims arising out of an erroneous payment may be waived when, among other things, a finding is made "that the erroneous payment of allowances occurred administrative error and that there is no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault or lack of good faith on the part of the employee(.) . . . Waiver of overpayments of pay . . . necessarily must depend upon the facts existing in the particular case." 4 C.F.R. Section 91.5(c).

We find that the Agency's exception does not provide a basis for finding the Arbitrator's award deficient. The Agency argues that a waiver of the claim for overpayment in wages is not warranted in this case because the circumstances in this case differ from those in decisions in which the Comptroller General has granted waivers. However, the Agency has failed to show that the Arbitrator's award violates applicable law or regulations. Rather, the Agency's contention constitutes mere disagreement with the Arbitrator's assessment of the facts in this case and his determination that the grievant is entitled to compensation. This contention is not a sufficient basis for finding the award deficient. See, for example, Social Security Administration, New York Regional Office and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3369, AFL-CIO, 27 FLRA No. 6 (1987).

V. Decision

For the reasons stated, the Agency's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., May 29, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY