[ 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 WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO RULE ON THE JUST CAUSE OF THE GRIEVANT'S REMOVAL. HOWEVER, THE ARBITRATOR ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS "NO DOUBT THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE GRIEVANT WAS DUE TO THE WORDS HE USED IN HIS WRITTEN GRIEVANCE, AND THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT GOVERNS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEN AN EMPLOYEE FILES A GRIEVANCE." THUS, THE ARBITRATOR STATED THE ISSUES TO BE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND REGULATIONS IN ITS SELECTION AND WHETHER THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT, THE ORDER, OR REGULATIONS IN ITS DISCIPLINE OF THE GRIEVANT FOR THE WORDS HE USED IN HIS WRITTEN GRIEVANCE. WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST ISSUE, THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINED THAT THE SELECTING OFFICIAL HAD THE RIGHT TO SELECT ANY NAME FROM THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED LIST AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN ITS SELECTION IN THIS CASE. WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND ISSUE, THE ARBITRATOR WAS OF THE OPINION THAT FEDERAL SECTOR ARBITRATION IS A CREATURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY COMMUNICATIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ARE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED. ALTHOUGH THE ARBITRATOR FOUND ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN DISCIPLINING THE GRIEVANT FOR THE WORDS HE USED IN HIS WRITTEN GRIEVANCE, THE ARBITRATOR HELD THAT HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO RULE ON WHETHER THE GRIEVANT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO HIS JOB SINCE THAT AUTHORITY IS RESERVED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. THEREFORE, AS HIS AWARD THE ARBITRATOR FOUND AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT WHEN THE EMPLOYER SELECTED (THE EMPLOYEE THAT IT DID) FOR THE PROMOTION . . . . 2. THE EMPLOYER VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WHEN THE EMPLOYER REMOVED THE GRIEVANT FROM SERVICE FOR THE WORDS USED IN HIS GRIEVANCE. THE EMPLOYER WILL IMMEDIATELY OFFER TO EXPUNGE THE GRIEVANT'S PERSONNEL FILE OF HIS REMOVAL. BOTH THE AGENCY AND THE UNION FILED PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2400.5 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY (44 FED.REG. 7) AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215), THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL, 5 C.F.R. PART 2411(1978), REMAIN OPERATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT CASE EXCEPT THAT THE WORD "AUTHORITY" IS SUBSTITUTED, AS APPROPRIATE, WHEREVER THE WORD "COUNCIL" APPEARS IN SUCH RULES. PURSUANT TO SECTION 2411.35 OF THE RULES AS SO AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THE AGENCY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION WHICH ALLEGES THAT PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL. YOU ARE REMINDED THAT BRIEFS MAY BE FILED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2411.36 OF THE AMENDED RULES. THE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR A STAY OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD. PURSUANT TO SECTION 2411.47(F) OF THE AMENDED RULES, THE AUTHORITY HAS DETERMINED, BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, THAT ISSUANCE OF A STAY OF PARAGRAPH 2 IS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR A STAY IS GRANTED. /1/ IN ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, THE UNION ASSERTS IN ITS ONE EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD THAT PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE AWARD SHOULD BE MODIFIED BECAUSE THE AGENCY VIOLATED APPLICABLE LAW, APPROPRIATE REGULATION, AND THE ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF ITS EXCEPTION, THE UNION ESSENTIALLY ARGUES THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION OF WHETHER THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND REGULATIONS IN ITS SELECTION, THE GRIEVANCE HAD MERIT IN THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT, THE ACTIVITY MERIT PROMOTION PLAN, AGENCY REGULATIONS, AND THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL BY ITS ACTIONS IN THIS CASE. AS NOTED, UNDER SECTION 2400.5 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COUNCIL REMAIN OPERATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT CASE EXCEPT THAT AS APPROPRIATE "AUTHORITY" IS SUBSTITUTED FOR "COUNCIL." ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2411.32 OF THE RULES AS SO AMENDED, THE AUTHORITY WILL GRANT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD WHERE IT APPEARS, BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION, THAT AN EXCEPTION PRESENTS A GROUND THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES APPLICABLE LAW OR THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES APPROPRIATE REGULATION OR THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES THE ORDER. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE UNION'S ASSERTIONS ARE THAT THE AGENCY'S ACTIONS, RATHER THAN THE AWARD, VIOLATED APPLICABLE LAW, APPROPRIATE REGULATION, AND THE ORDER. AS IS WELL ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ORDER, ASSERTIONS THAT THE AGENCY VIOLATED APPLICABLE LAW OR APPROPRIATE REGULATION FAIL TO STATE A GROUND UPON WHICH A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 2411.32 OF THE RULES. PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD AND BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO (SMITH, ARBITRATOR), 5 FLRC 480 (FLRC NO. 76A-146 (JUNE 7, 1977), REPORT NO. 128). LIKEWISE, AN ASSERTION THAT THE AGENCY RATHER THAN THE AWARD VIOLATED THE ORDER FAILS TO STATE A GROUND FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 2411.32 OF THE RULES. OKLAHOMA CITY AIR LOGISTICS CENTER, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA AND LOCAL 916, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (GRAY, ARBITRATOR), FLRC NO. 78A-113 (DEC. 28, 1978), REPORT NO. 167. THEREFORE, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2411.32 OF THE RULES FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE AUTHORITY OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD. /2/ RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER /1/ IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON THE UNION'S REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD. /2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE WAS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED. THE DECISION DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE ORDER.