Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Authority decision, October 29, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves exceptions to an arbitral award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) generally does not extend to orders involving arbitral awards unless an order involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116. This order does not decide an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

Workers at Norfolk Naval Shipyard’s industrial waste treatment plant sought a pay differential for high-degree toxic-chemical hazards. An arbitrator found that training, protective devices, and safety measures had practically eliminated the potential for personal injury and denied the differential. The Authority held that the disputed local work conditions were for the arbitrator to evaluate and that the union had not shown a conflict with federal personnel guidance. It denied the exception.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
• Outcome: Union exception denied; differential-denial award upheld.
• Key point: Local hazard findings, rather than a general pay rule, controlled the differential claim.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p413 ]

10:0413(70)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 70

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
Activity

and

TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

Case No. O-AR-377

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Harold D. Jones, Jr. 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. The Agency filed an opposition.

The parties in this case submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the work performed by employees in the Activity's industrial waste treatment plant warranted the payment of an environmental differential under the category of poisons (toxic chemicals)-- high degree hazard. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Arbitrator expressly found that the potential for personal injury had been practically eliminated by training, protective devices, and safety measures. Accordingly, as his award the Arbitrator ruled that the work performed did not warrant the payment of an environmental differential.

In its exception the Union contends that the award is contrary to FPM Supplement 532-1. However, this exception provides no basis for finding the award deficient. It is well established and the Authority has consistently recognized that the specific work situations for which an environmental differential is payable under FPM Supplement 532-1 are left to local determination, including arbitration. E.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2943 and Department of the Air Force, Loring Air Force Base, Maine, 10 FLRA No. 15 (1982); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1857 and Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 9 FLRA No. 128 (1982). In this case the Arbitrator determined as to the disputed local work situation that the payment of an environmental differential was not warranted, and consequently the Union's exception does not establish that the award is contrary to FPM Supplement 532-1. See Sacramento Air Logistics Center; Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-1, 6 FLRA No. 47 (1981); Veterans Administration Medical Center, Fort Howard and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2146, 5 FLRA No. 31 (1981). Accordingly, the exception is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1982 Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman Henry B. Frazier III, Member Leon B. Applewhaite, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY