Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Kansas City Operations Office and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 858 (Authority decision, September 20, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exception to an arbitration award on a career-ladder promotion. 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 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation employee challenged a performance appraisal and the denial of a career-ladder promotion from GS-6 to GS-7. An arbitrator ordered a new appraisal but found no agreement violation in the promotion decision. NFFE Local 858 appealed the promotion ruling, arguing that the employee had performed at the higher level without recorded errors. The Authority found that the union's disagreement with the arbitrator's reading of the agreement did not show a deficient award. It denied the exception, leaving both parts of the award in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration exceptions under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; reevaluation ordered by the arbitrator remains, but the promotion grievance remains denied.
• Key point: Disagreement with an arbitrator’s reading of the agreement did not justify setting aside the promotion ruling.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p1228 ]
32:1228(163)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

KANSAS CITY OPERATIONS OFFICE

Activity

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL

EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 858

Union

Case No. O-AR-1564

DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator Clifford E. Smith. A grievance was filed claiming that the grievant's performance appraisal was in error and that the grievant should have received a career-ladder promotion from GS-6 to GS-7. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance as to the performance appraisal issue and denied the grievance as to the promotion issue.

The Union filed an exception under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union contends that the denial of the grievance on the promotion issue violates the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Agency filed an opposition.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient because it violates the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The grievance claimed that the grievant's performance evaluation was in error and that the grievant should have received a career-ladder promotion from GS-6 to GS-7. The grievance was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

The Arbitrator stated the issues to be whether the parties' collective bargaining agreement was violated in appraising the grievant or in deciding not to promote the grievant.

On the performance appraisal issue, the Arbitrator determined that the grievant had not been evaluated as required by the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator sustained this portion of the grievance and ordered that the grievant's performance be reevaluated.

On the promotion issue, the Arbitrator found no evidence that the decision not to promote the grievant violated the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied this portion of the grievance.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Union contends that by denying the grievance on the promotion issue, the award violates the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Union asserts that evidence was presented to the Arbitrator showing that the grievant had performed the duties of her position at the full performance level with no recorded errors and that consequently, the grievant was entitled to have been promoted under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Union maintains that the Arbitrator erred in ruling that the decision not to promote the grievant did not violate the parties' agreement.

The Agency contends that the Arbitrator properly ruled that the decision not to promote the grievant did not violate the agreement and that the award is not deficient.

IV. Discussion

We conclude that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the Statute. The Union has failed to establish 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 relations cases.

The Union is simply disagreeing with the Arbitrator's interpretation and application of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3954 and Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, Arizona, 32 FLRA 782, 783-84 (1988) (an exception which simply disagrees with an arbitrator's interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement provides no basis for finding an award deficient).

V. Decision

The Union's exception is denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

_____
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Jean
McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)