VA Medical Center, Leavenworth and AFGE Local 85 (Authority decision, June 9, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitrator's award rejecting a temporary-promotion grievance. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), Authority orders involving arbitral awards generally are 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

An employee at the Leavenworth VA Medical Center claimed he had spent an extended period in a higher-grade position and should have received a temporary promotion. The arbitrator found that he did not meet the qualifications for the higher-grade audio-visual production officer position. The arbitrator also found no proof that the employee's temporary position had been wrongly classified at GS-9 instead of GS-11, and denied the grievance. The union argued that the arbitrator had misread the parties' agreement. The Authority found no basis under the statute to set aside the award and denied the union's exceptions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; grievance denial stands.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator's interpretation of an agreement did not establish that the award was legally deficient.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p402 ]

27:0402(55)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 55

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 85
Union

Case No. 0-AR-1331

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Russell C. Neas 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

A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration claiming that the grievant, a GS-9, had been detailed to a higher-grade position for an extended period of time and that the Activity's failure to temporarily promote him to the higher-grade position violated the parties' master agreement. The Arbitrator determined that the grievent was not fully qualified for promotion to the higher-grade position of audio-visual production officer. He also determined that the Union had failed to establish that the classification of the grievant's temporary position at GS-9 instead of GS-11 was erroneous. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance ruling that no violation of law, regulation, or the agreement had been established.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator misinterpreted and misapplied the master agreement.

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 the grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations cases. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 1631 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Chillicothe, Ohio, 23 FLRA No. 69 (1986) (in order for an employee to be properly promoted consistent with civil service law and regulation, whether temporarily or permanently, the employee must meet at the time of the promotion the minimum qualification requirements for the position to which the employee is to be promoted); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923 and Social Security Administration, Headquarters, Bureaus and Offices, 12 FLRA 511 (1983) (by disputing the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement on a grievance claiming an extended detail to a higher-grade position, the agency was seeking to have its own interpretation of the agreement substituted for that of the arbitrator, which provides no basis for finding an award deficient). Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 9, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY