Naval Plant Representative Office, Dallas, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local Union 3548

 



[ v01 p333 ]
01:0333(41)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 41
                                            MAY 21, 1979
 
 MR. HERBERT L. ZIPPERIAN
 LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST
 LABOR AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BRANCH
 OFFICE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20390
 
 MS. JIMMIE F. GRIFFITH
 NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 3141 CLIFFOAK DRIVE
 DALLAS, TEXAS 75233
 
                RE:  NAVAL PLAN REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, DALLAS, TEXAS 
                     AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,          
                     LOCAL UNION 3548 (SCHEDLER, ARBITRATOR), FLRC
                     No. 78A-157
 
 DEAR MR. ZIPPERIAN AND MS. GRIFFITH:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF
 THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD FILED BY THE AGENCY AND THE UNION, THE UNION'S
 OPPOSITION TO THE AGENCY'S PETITION, AND THE RESPECTIVE REQUESTS FOR A
 STAY OF THE AWARD, ALL FILED IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, THIS MATTER AROSE AS THE RESULT
 OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT POSTED BY THE NAVAL PLANT REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE (THE
 ACTIVITY) FOR A VACANCY IN A GRADE 12 POSITION.  THE GRIEVANT BID ON THE
 VACANCY AND HE WAS RATED AS HIGHLY QUALIFIED ALONG WITH THREE OTHER
 EMPLOYEES.  THE GRIEVANT FILED A GRIEVANCE WHEN HE WAS NOT SELECTED FOR
 THE POSITION.  AS PART OF HIS GRIEVANCE, THE GRIEVANT CLAIMED THAT THE
 SELECTION FOR THE POSITION HAD BEEN IMPROPER BECAUSE OF THE SELECTING
 OFFICIAL'S PARTIALITY IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS PROMOTED.  THE
 GRIEVANT ALLEGED THAT THE SELECTING OFFICIAL HAD SOLICITED AND ACCEPTED
 GRATUITIES AND FAVORS FROM THIS EMPLOYEE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE OFFICIAL
 COULD NOT MAKE A PROPER SELECTION.  THUS, THE GRIEVANT CLAIMED THAT HIS
 PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY THIS RELATIONSHIP
 BETWEEN THE SELECTING OFFICIAL AND THE SELECTED EMPLOYEE.  THE ACTIVITY
 FORMALLY INVESTIGATED THE GRIEVANT'S ALLEGATIONS AND EXONERATED FROM ANY
 MISCONDUCT BOTH THE SELECTING OFFICIAL AND THE EMPLOYEE SELECTED.
 THEREAFTER, THE GRIEVANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE FOR
 "(K)NOWINGLY MAKING FALSE AND MALICIOUS STATEMENTS WITH INTENT TO HARM
 OR DESTROY THE REPUTATION OF OTHERS."
 
    THE GRIEVANCE DISPUTING THE SELECTION WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED TO
 ARBITRATION WITH THE UNION REQUESTING THE ARBITRATOR TO FIND THAT THE
 ACTIVITY HAD VIOLATED THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND THE
 ACTIVITY'S MERIT PROMOTION PLAN IN ITS SELECTION FOR THE POSITION IN
 QUESTION.  THE UNION ALSO REQUESTED THE ARBITRATOR TO FIND THAT THE
 GRIEVANT WAS UNJUSTLY REMOVED FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE.  IN THIS RESPECT
 THE ARBITRATOR RULED THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WAS THE PROPER
 FORUM TO DISPUTE THE REMOVAL AND THAT HE WA