Corpus Christi Army Depot and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2142 (Authority decision, July 31, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award requiring a revised rating process for an equipment repairer applicant while declining to order promotions. 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

Two Corpus Christi Army Depot employees challenged the filling of equipment repairer positions. Management revised its rating plan and gave one employee priority consideration, but the grievance continued. An arbitrator found an invalid measure in the revised plan and ordered a valid plan to rerate the second employee, with priority consideration if his score met the stated threshold. He did not order either employee promoted. The Authority rejected the union's claim that law required promotions and left the rerating remedy in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Prohibited personnel practice claim under 5 U.S.C. § 2302; arbitration review under § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exceptions denied; rerating and conditional priority consideration stand.
• Key point: The union did not establish a legal basis to replace the arbitrator's selection remedy with directed promotions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v28 p362 ]
28:0362(57)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA NO. 57

CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT

Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2142

Union

Case No. 0-AR-1371

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Jerome H. Ross 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 on behalf of two employees alleging violations in connection with the filling of several equipment repairer positions. After the grievance was filed, management agreed to revise the crediting plan and rerated all the candidates who had originally been ranked as qualified. The new ratings resulted in Grievant Hall being rated highly qualified and the rating of Grievant Thorne being lowered. Management granted Grievant Hall priority consideration for the next vacancy and denied relief to Grievant Thorne. This action did not resolve the grievance which was submitted to arbitration with the Union demanding that both grievants be granted promotions to the repairer position.

The Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that prohibited personnel practices had been committed under 5 U.S.C. 2302. He did find that the revised crediting plan contained an invalid measuring device, and he consequently directed management to reconvene a panel to develop a valid crediting plan to rate and rank Grievant Thorne with the successful candidates. The Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the appropriate remedy was promotions for both grievants. He concluded that management had provided the appropriate relief to Grievant Hall. Similarly, he directed that if Grievant Thorne's rerated average score is at least 2.5, Grievant Thorne is likewise to be offered priority consideration for the next appropriate vacancy.

III. Discussion

In its exceptions the Union contends that the award is contrary to law and regulation. The Union argues that contrary to the findings of the Arbitrator, merit system principles were violated, prohibited personnel practices were committed, and the grievants were entitled to be promoted.

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 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 cases. See, for example, Local R-1-185, National Association of Government Employees and the Adjutant General of the State of Connecticut, 25 FLRA No. 36 (1987) (discussing the constraints on arbitrators in ordering particular individuals promoted as corrective action for a defective selection action); U.S. Air Force, 1947 Support Group and AFGE - GAIU, Council of Headquarters, USAF Locals, AFL - CIO, 20 FLRA 444 (1985) (contentions of the union which merely repeated arguments rejected by the arbitrator that a selection action was illegal failed to demonstrate that the award was contrary to law, rule, or regulation).

Accordingly, the union's exceptions are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY