Carswell Air Force Base and AFGE Local 1364 (Authority decision, July 31, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves exceptions to 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 under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not state that it involves one.

Plain-English summary

An arbitrator barred the Air Force from adding debriefing duties to avionic branch position descriptions. The Authority found that this part of the award prevented management from assigning work. It struck the final sentence of the award and left the rest in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Arbitration review under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a) and work assignment under § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Final sentence barring debriefing duties struck.
• Key point: Position descriptions could include debriefing duties assigned by management.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v19 p386 ]

19:0386(51)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

19 FLRA No. 51

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
CARSWELL AIR FORCE BASE
Activity

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1364
Union

Case No. O-AR-903

DECISION

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Barnett M. Goodstein filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

A grievance was filed in this case challenging management's assignment of duties relating to the debriefing of crew members returning from flying missions to employees in specialist positions in the avionics branch of the Activity. According to the Arbitrator, such debriefing duties had previously been exclusively assigned to employees in the position of aircraft mechanic, and the grievance was filed as a result of management's actions in commencing the assignment of such duties to avionics branch personnel in addition to aircraft mechanics. In its grievance, the Union in particular contended that such duties were not covered by the statement of duties and responsibilities in the applicable positions descriptions of the avionics branch personnel. As a consequence, management changed the position descriptions of all avionics branch personnel to provide that the incumbent perform other related duties such as debriefing aircrews. The grievance remained unresolved and was submitted to arbitration. The Arbitrator rejected the validity of the position description amendment by the Activity determining that only duties directly related to the position may be added to the position description and that the debriefing duties were not directly related. Indeed, the Arbitrator concluded that management's actions resulted in the assignment of debriefing duties to unskilled and unknowledgeable personnel and that such personnel should not be utilized for such purpose. Accordingly, as his award in this respect the Arbitrator ordered as follows:

(T)he (Activity) is ordered to cease and desist from utilizing Avionics Branch specialists in any debriefing work that does not strictly utilize the specialty of that particular specialist, and cease and desist from using any specialist not connected with the aircraft or its systems for any debriefing duties.

In its exception the Agency contends that the award is deficient as contrary to management's right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The Authority agrees.

It is well established that the right "to assign work" pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute includes the right to determine the particular employee to whom, or the position to which, duties will be assigned. E.g. National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, Dallas District, 13 FLRA 48, 49 (1983). In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1999 and Army-Air Force Exchange Service, Dix-McGuire Exchange, Fort Dix, New Jersey, 2 FLRA 152, 159-61 (1979) (proposal 2), enforced as to other matters sub nom. Department of Defense v. FLRA, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945 (1982), the Authority addressed the connection between the authority of an agency to assign work under the Statute and the statement of duties in an employee's position description. The Authority described the intent of the applicable proposal in Dix-McGuire as preventing the agency from expanding the work regularly required of the incumbent of a position by means of assigning work which is not reasonably related to the duties stated in the position description. In finding the proposal within the duty to bargain, the Authority emphasized that nothing in the proposal would preclude the assignment to the employees of unrelated duties. Rather, if the agency decided to add unrelated duties to a position to be performed regularly, it would only need to change the position description in order to do so, and the proposal in no way precluded the agency from doing so. Accordingly, the Authority determined that in such circumstances, the authority of the agency to assign work remains unaffected. In terms of this case, in contrast to Dix-McGuire, the Arbitrator's award under similar circumstances has directly affected the authority of the Activity to assign work contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The award, contrary to the Statute, specifically precludes the Activity from adding the debriefing duties to the position descriptions of avionic branch personnel in order to have such personnel regularly perform such duties, and the award specifically denies management its right to determine that avionic branch personnel shall be assigned debriefing duties. Therefore, the Authority finds that the award in this respect is deficient as contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. Accordingly, the award is modified by striking the last sentence. Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY