American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1857 and Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base



[ v02 p110 ]
02:0110(11)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 11
 
 MR. DON A. DRESSER
 CHIEF, LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION
 DIRECTORATE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20330
 
                     RE:  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
                          LOCAL 1857 AND SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER,
                          McCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, (ANDERSON, ARBITRATOR),
                          Case No. 0-AR-4
 
 DEAR MR. DRESSER:
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE AGENCY'S PETITION FOR
 REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IN THE ABOVE
 ENTITLED CASE.  /1/
 
    ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE GRIEVANT IN THIS CASE, AN EMPLOYEE
 OF MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE (THE ACTIVITY), WAS ASSIGNED IN JULY 1973 TO
 THE POSITION OF WORKER-TRAINEE WG-2.  SHE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROMOTED TO
 THE POSITION OF WORKER-TRAINEE, WG-3.  HOWEVER, THE GRIEVANT CLAIMED
 THAT WHILE IN THESE POSITIONS SHE WAS ACTUALLY ASSIGNED THE DUTIES OF AN
 ELECTRONICS MECHANIC HELPER, WG-2614-5.  THEREFORE, IN APPROXIMATELY
 JUNE 1976, SHE FILED A GRIEVANCE REQUESTING THAT SHE BE PROMOTED TO AN
 ELECTRONICS MECHANIC HELPER, WG-2614-5, POSITION.
 
    THE GRIEVANCE WAS MUTUALLY RESOLVED AT THE THIRD STEP OF THE PARTIES'
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE BY THE CONVENING OF A JOINT
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.  THE COMMITTEE MADE FIVE
 RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE BASE VICE COMMANDER ON JUNE
 8, 1977.  /2/
 
    THEREAFTER, IN SEPTEMBER 1977, THE UNION FILED A NEW GRIEVANCE,
 CLAIMING THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD NOT IMPLEMENTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF
 THE JOINT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.  THE MATTER ULTIMATELY WAS SUBMITTED TO
 ARBITRATION.  THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR, AS STIPULATED BY THE
 PARTIES, WAS:
 
    A.  HAS THE COMMANDER COMPLIED WITH THE 3D STEP COMMITTEE'S
 RECOMMENDATIONS, SIGNED BY THE
 
    COMMANDER ON 8 JUNE 1977(?)
 
    B.  IF YES, HAS THE COMMANDER DONE SO IN A TIMELY AND REASONABLE
 MANNER?
 
    C.  IF NOT COMPLIED WITH IN A TIMELY AND REASONABLE MANNER;  WHAT, IF
 ANYTHING, SHOULD THE
 
    REMEDY BE?
 
    IN THE DISCUSSION AND OPINION ACCOMPANYING HIS AWARD THE ARBITRATOR
 ADDRESSED EACH OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ACTIONS THAT
 HAD BEEN TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  AS TO RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3,
 THAT "IMMEDIATE ACTION BE TAKEN TO ASSIGN GRIEVANT TO DUTIES
 COMMENSURATE WITH HER WG-3 GRADE," THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT THE
 ACTION TAKEN BY THE ACTIVITY HAD NOT BEEN "IMMEDIATE." IN THIS REGARD
 THE ARBITRATOR NOTED THAT TESTIMONY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING INDICATED
 THAT THE GRIEVANT HAD CONTINUED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF AN ELECTRONICS
 MECHANIC HELPER, WG-2614-5, FROM JUNE 8, 1977, THE DATE THE COMMITTEE'S
 RECOMMENDATIONS WERE APPROVED, UNTIL JANUARY 15