Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, Tampa, Florida and Federal Aviation Science and Technological Association, National Association of Government Employees (Authority decision, May 13, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority sets aside an arbitration award. 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

An FAA electronics technician grieved that his assigned certification work exceeded the duties listed in his GS-11 position description. An arbitrator found that the work involved systems rather than subsystems and ordered the agency to change the duties or the position description. The Authority held that this particular dispute turned on a technical question controlling the grade of the position. Because the labor statute excludes that kind of classification grievance from arbitration when there is no reduction in grade or pay, the Authority set aside the award. It distinguished ordinary grievances about whether a position description accurately lists assigned duties.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(c)(5) and 7122(a).
• Outcome: Arbitration award set aside.
• Key point: An arbitrator cannot decide a grade-controlling classification question by framing it as a position-description dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p532 ]

08:0532(103)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 103

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
TAMPA, FLORIDA
Activity

and

FEDERAL AVIATION SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
TAMPA, FLORIDA
Union

Case No. O-AR-143

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARD OF THE
ARBITRATOR ROGER C. WILLIAMS FILED BY THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7122(A)
OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C.
7122(A)) (THE STATUTE) AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425). THE UNION FILED AN OPPOSITION.

ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN
THE GRIEVANT, A GS-11 ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN, FILED A GRIEVANCE ALLEGING
THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD VIOLATED THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE GUIDE, AND CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION (OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT) POSITION
CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS BY ASSIGNING HIM "SYSTEMS" CERTIFICATION
RESPONSIBILITY WHEN SUCH RESPONSIBILITY WAS THE DUTY OF A GS-12
ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN. THE ACTIVITY DENIED THE GRIEVANCE ON THE BASIS
THAT THE GRIEVANT'S WORK ASSIGNMENT, CONSISTENT WITH HIS POSITION
DESCRIPTION AND HIS CLASSIFICATION AS A GS-11, INVOLVED ONLY GRIEVANCE
ACTUALLY INVOLVED THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION AND
THEREFORE WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. THE GRIEVANCE WAS
ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION WITH THE FOLLOWING ISSUES STIPULATED
TO THE ARBITRATOR:

(1) IS THE MATTER RAISED BY THE GRIEVANT GRIEVABLE AND/OR ARBITRABLE
UNDER THE AGREEMENT?

(2) IF SO, DOES THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION DESCRIPTION ACCURATELY
REFLECT THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION?

THE ARBITRATOR FIRST FOUND THE ISSUE TO BE GRIEVABLE AND ARBITRABLE.
WHILE NOTING THAT UNDER SECTION 7121(C)(5) OF THE STATUTE, /1/ "THE
ARBITRATOR IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO RECLASSIFY GRIEVANT," HE FOUND THAT
"(T)HE ISSUE ON THE MERITS WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED IS . . .
GRIEVABLE AND ARBITRABLE, AND THE ARBITRATOR HAS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT GRIEVANT'S POSITION DESCRIPTION ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE
DUTIES OF HIS POSITION." /2/

ON THE MERITS, THE ARBITRATOR FIRST NOTED THAT THE APPLICABLE PORTION
OF THE POSITION DESCRIPTION FOR ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN GS-856-11, WHICH
APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION, PROVIDED IN PART: "(A)SSUMES
RESPONSIBILITY FOR . . . CERTIFICATION OF A NUMBER OF SUBSYSTEMS . . . "
HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE COMPARABLE PORTION OF THE POSITION DESCRIPTION
FOR ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN GS-856-12 PROVIDED: "(A)SSUMES FULL AND
INDEPENDENT CERTIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY FOR . . . TWO OR MORE COMPLEX
ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS . . . ." THE ARBITRATOR STATED THAT THERE WAS NO
DISPUTE OVER THE ACTUAL WORK WHICH THE GRIEVANT WAS REQUIRED TO PERFORM
IN THE COMPLETION OF HIS DUTY ASSIGNMENT, INSTEAD THE DISPUTE CENTERED
AROUND WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT ON WHICH THE GRIEVANT WORKED CONSTITUTED
"SYSTEM," AS CONTENDED BY THE UNION, OR "SUBSYSTEMS," AS CONTENDED BY
THE ACTIVITY. THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE UNION HAD SHOWN "BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE" THAT THE EQUIPMENT WHICH THE GRIEVANT
WORKED ON CONSTITUTED "SYSTEMS" AND THAT THEREFORE HIS POSITION
DESCRIPTION DID NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION. HE
THEREFORE MADE THE FOLLOWING AWARD:

THE GRIEVANCE IS SUSTAINED. THE EMPLOYER WILL EITHER (1) MODIFY
GRIEVANT'S ASSIGNED JOB

DUTIES TO CONFORM WITH THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DESCRIBED -N
HIS POSITION DESCRIPTION

NO. SO-6879, OR (2) MODIFY GRIEVANT'S POSITION DESCRIPTION TO CONFORM
TO THE FACT THAT HE IS

ASSIGNED CERTIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY FOR TWO SYSTEMS. GRIEVANT IS
AWARDED NO BACK PAY.

AS ONE OF ITS EXCEPTIONS, THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD IS
CONTRARY TO SECTION 7121(C)(5) OF THE STATUTE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS
EXCEPTION THE AGENCY ARGUES THAT THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GRIEVANCE
WENT BEYOND THE ACCURACY OF THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION DESCRIPTION AND
CLEARLY CONCERNED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION WAS
ACCURATELY CLASSIFIED. THEREFORE, THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE
ARBITRATOR'S FINDING THAT THE MATTER WAS ARBITRABLE AND HIS SUBSEQUENT
DECISION ON THE MERITS IS CONTRARY TO SECTION 7121(C)(5) OF THE STATUTE
WHICH EXCLUDES FROM THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ANY GRIEVANCE CONCERNING
THE
CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN THE REDUCTION IN
GRADE OR PAY OF AN EMPLOYEE.

THE AUTHORITY AGREES. WHILE THE STIPULATED ISSUE BEFORE THE
ARBITRATOR ONLY QUESTIONED THE ACCURACY OF THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION
DESCRIPTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE GRIEVANCE
CONCERNED THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION BECAUSE THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS THE GRADE LEVEL OF THE
DUTIES ASSIGNED TO AND PERFORMED BY THE GRIEVANT. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE
IN THIS CASE AS TO THE GRIEVANT'S DUTIES AND NO DISPUTE THAT IN GENERAL
UNDER THE AGENCY'S CLASSIFICATION OF ITS POSITIONS, EMPLOYEES WHO HAD
CERTIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY FOR "SUBSYSTEMS" WERE CLASSIFIED AT ONE
LEVEL WHILE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD CERTIFICATION RESPONSIBILITY FOR "SYSTEMS"
WERE CLASSIFIED AT A HIGHER LEVEL. THUS, THE ARBITRATOR RESOLVED THE
TECHNICAL AND GRADE-CONTROLLING QUESTION IN DISPUTE OF WHETHER THE
EQUIPMENT ON WHICH THE GRIEVANT WORKED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS
DUTIES CONSTITUTED A "SYSTEM" OR A "SUBSYSTEM," AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
AWARD NECESSARILY CONCERNED WHETHER THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION WAS
PROPERLY
CLASSIFIED. ALTHOUGH THE ARBITRATOR PROPERLY NOTED THAT HE COULD NOT
"RECLASSIFY (THE) GRIEVANT" OR "RULE ON A DISPUTE OVER WHETHER
GRIEVANT'S POSITION HAS BEEN PROPERLY CLASSIFIED," THE ACTUAL QUESTION
HE ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED WAS SO INTEGRALLY RELATED TO, AND CONTROLLING
OF, THE GRADE OF THE GRIEVANT'S POSITION THAT IT MUST BE FOUND TO
CONCERN THE CLASSIFICATION OF A POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
7121(C)(5) OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT, IN
THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
FINDING THE MATTER ARBITRABLE AND RESOLVING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
GRIEVANT WORKED ON A "SYSTEM" OR A "SUBSYSTEM" IS CONTRARY TO SECTION
7121(C)(5) OF THE STATUTE AS "CONCERNING . . . THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY
POSITION WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN THE REDUCTION IN GRADE OR PAY OF AN
EMPLOYEE." /3/

FOR THIS REASON, THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS SET ASIDE.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C. MAY 13, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ 5 U.S.C. 7121(C)(5) PROVIDES:

SECTION 7121. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

(C) THE PRECEDING SUBSECTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ANY GRIEVANCE CONCERNING --

(5) THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN THE
REDUCTION IN GRADE OR

PAY OF AN EMPLOYEE.

/2/ THE ARBITRATOR NOTED THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
"SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT DISPUTES OVER THE ACCURACY OF AN EMPLOYEE'S
POSITION DESCRIPTION MAY BE PROCESSED THROUGH THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE."

/3/ THE AUTHORITY EMPHASIZES THAT ITS DECISION HEREIN IS LIMITED TO
THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS CASE. IT IN NO MANNER PREVENTS GRIEVANCES
CONCERNING, AND ARBITRAL REVIEW OF, THE ACCURACY OF AN EMPLOYEE'S
OFFICIAL POSITION DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING WHETHER THE DUTIES REGULARLY
ASSIGNED BY MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMED BY THE EMPLOYEE ARE ACCURATELY
REFLECTED BY THE POSITION DESCRIPTION, AND IT IN NO MANNER PREVENTS AN
ARBITRATOR, AS APPROPRIATE, FROM ORDERING AN AGENCY TO CHANGE THE
POSITION DESCRIPTION IF THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED TO ADD UNRELATED DUTIES
TO THE POSITION TO BE REGULARLY PERFORMED BY THE EMPLOYEE. BECAUSE SUCH
AN ORDER DOES NOT DIRECTLY CONCERN POSITION CLASSIFICATION, IT WOULD BE
PROPER EVEN IF THE CHANGE IN THE POSITION DESCRIPTION RESULTS IN A
CLASSIFICATION APPEAL OR A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE POSITION.