FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • United States, Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia (Agency) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-12 (Union)

United States, Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia (Agency) and National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-12 (Union)

[ v61 p299 ]

61 FLRA No. 54

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY TRAINING AND
DOCTRINE COMMAND
FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA
(Agency)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL R4-12
(Union)

0-AR-3948

_____

DECISION

September 29, 2005

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

I.      Statement of the Case

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Andree Y. McKissick filed by the Agency under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's exceptions.

      The Arbitrator sustained a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in the nonselection of the grievants for a Lead Human Resources (LHR) Specialist, General Schedule (GS) 11-12, position.

      For the reasons that follow, we find that the award is deficient under § 7122(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, we set it aside, except for the Arbitrator's fees portion of the award, which is modified to allocate such fees to the Union.

II.     Background and Arbitrator's Award

      The grievants, three Human Resource Specialists, applied for an LHR Specialist position, GS-05-0201-11/12. The Chief (Supervisor) of the office made a selection, but none of the grievants was selected. Thereafter, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated Article XXX, Section 4 of the CBA when it utilized an unfair process to fill the vacancy. [n1]  The grievance was denied on the basis that it concerned nonselection, a nongrievable matter under Article XXXIV, Section 3 of the CBA, and the matter was submitted to arbitration.

      The Arbitrator stated the issues as follows:

     

Footnote # 1 for 61 FLRA No. 54 - Authority's Decision

   The pertinent text of Article XXX, Section 4 and other relevant provisions of the CBA are set forth in the Appendix to this decision.

Footnote # 2 for 61 FLRA No. 54 - Authority's Decision

   In view of this conclusion, we do not address the Agency's remaining exceptions.