[ v05 p759 ]
05:0759(100)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
5 FLRA No. 100 COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, AFL-CIO Union and OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS, FIELD OPERATIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SAN FRANCISCO REGION Activity Case No. 0-AR-123 DECISION THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR DAVID A. CONCEPCION FILED BY THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7122(A)). ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, THE DISPUTE IN THIS MATTER AROSE WHEN THE GRIEVANT, A CLAIMS DEVELOPMENT CLERK, GS-4, IN THE ACTIVITY'S SANTA ROSA DISTRICT OFFICE, APPLIED FOR AND WAS APPOINTED TO A DATA REVIEW TECHNICIAN POSITION AT THE GS-4 LEVEL. THE DATA REVIEW TECHNICIAN POSITION IS A CAREER LADDER POSITION WITH A PAY RANGE FROM GS-4 TO GS-10. THE POSITION WAS POSTED FOR GRADES GS-4 THROUGH GS-7. THE PROMOTION CERTIFICATE SHOWED THAT THE GRIEVANT WAS CERTIFIED AS QUALIFIED AT BOTH THE GS-4 AND GS-5 LEVELS FOR THE DATA REVIEW TECHNICIAN POSITION. SUBSEQUENT TO HER SELECTION FOR THE NEW POSITION, THE EMPLOYEE FILED A GRIEVANCE CHALLENGING THE ACTIVITY'S FAILURE TO APPOINT HER TO THE DATA REVIEW TECHNICIAN POSITION AT THE HIGHEST GRADE LEVEL (GS-5) FOR WHICH SHE WAS QUALIFIED. THE THRUST OF THE GRIEVANCE WAS THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD ABRIDGED A PAST PRACTICE WHEREBY A PROMOTED EMPLOYEE IS ALWAYS PLACED AT THE HIGHEST GRADE LEVEL FOR WHICH HE OR SHE IS QUALIFIED. THE ARBITRATOR FIRST OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE AGENCY'S MERIT PROMOTION PLAN ARE SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A PERSON PROMOTED IS TO RECEIVE A GRADE INCREASE. OBSERVING THAT AN INCREASE IN GRADE CONCOMITANT WITH A PROMOTION CAN BE VIEWED AS AN EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RELATING TO THE PROMOTIONAL PROCESS, THE ARBITRATOR FRAMED THE KEY TEST UPON WHICH HIS DETERMINATION WOULD TURN IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: (I)T MUST BE SHOWN THAT MANAGEMENT BY ITS ACTION HAS SO CONSISTENTLY ACTED IN A CERTAIN MANNER AS TO HAVE CREATED A BENEFIT, THROUGH PAST PRACTICE, AND THAT THE BENEFIT HAS ATTAINED A STATUS EQUAL TO THE PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED. APPLYING THIS TEST, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED: THE FACTS SUPPORT THE (UNION'S) CONTENTION THAT PROMOTING TO THE HIGHEST GRADE LEVEL TO WHICH A SELECTEE IS QUALIFIED IS AN ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE. THE PRACTICE INVOLVES A MAJOR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNILATERALLY AND ADMINISTERED UNILATERALLY BY MANAGEMENT, IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION, IT WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD INVOLVING FIFTY TO ONE-HUNDRED PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS, IT WAS A SPECIFIC PRACTICE; AND BOTH MANAGEMENT AND THE WORK FORCE ACCEPTED IT AS ESTABLISHED AND RELIED UPON THAT BELIEF NOT ONLY IN THE SEEKING OF PROMOTION BUT IN ADVISING ON PROMOTION. HAVING FOUND THAT THE PAST PRACTICE ADVOCATED BY THE UNION DID EXIST, THE ARBITRATOR SUSTAINED THE GRIEVANCE. IN FORMULATING A REMEDY, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE BACK PAY ACT /1/ AN ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE SUCH AS THE ONE HE FOUND TO EXIST IN THIS CASE IS JUST AS MUCH A PART OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AS ITS ACTUAL WRITTEN PROVISIONS. THUS, IN SUMMARY, HE HELD THAT THE BENEFIT AT ISSUE (I.E., THE RIGHT WHEN PROMOTED TO BE PLACED AT THE HIGHEST GRADE LEVEL FOR WHICH ONE IS QUALIFIED), ALTHOUGH AN UNWRITTEN POLICY, IS STILL AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT AND AS SUCH CONSTITUTES A "NON-DISCRETIONARY OBLIGATION" WHICH THE ACTIVITY FAILED TO MEET. ACCORDINGLY, THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT AN AWARD OF BACKPAY IS PROPER AND DIRECTED THAT THE ACTIVITY PROMOTE THE GRIEVANT TO THE GS-5 DATA REVIEW TECHNICIAN POSITION RETROACTIVE TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1979. THE AGENCY FILED AN EXCEPTION TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD UNDER SECTION 7122(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE /2/ AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 2425). THE UNION FILED AN OPPOSITION. THE AGENCY ASSERTS THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD OF BACKPAY AND A RETROACTIVE PROMOTION IS NOT SANCTIONED BY THE BACK PAY ACT AND IS THEREFORE CONTRARY TO LAW AND MUST BE VACATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 7122(A)OF THE STATUTE. THE KEY TO THAT ASSERTION IS THE AGENCY'S CLAIM THAT THE GRIEVANT WAS NOT AFFECTED BY AN "UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED PERSONNEL ACTION" AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE BACK PAY ACT. /3/ CITING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT IN ORDER FOR AN "UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED PERSONNEL ACTION" TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THIS CASE IT MUST HAVE BEEN DETERMINED THAT IN NOT PLACING THE GRIEVANT IN THE HIGHEST GRADE LEVEL IN THE CAREER LADDER FOR WHICH SHE WAS QUALIFIED, THE ACTIVITY ABRIDGED A NON-DISCRETIONARY POLICY AS ESTABLISHED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE AGENCY ARGUES THAT BECAUSE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CONTAINS NO EXPLICIT LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE GRIEVANT BE PLACED AT THE GS-5 LEVEL, THE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO INCORPORATE A NON-DISCRETIONARY POLICY TO THAT EFFECT. THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, ORDERING THE GRIEVANT RETROACTIVELY PROMOTED WITH BACKPAY, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE BACK PAY ACT. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT AN ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD A RETROACTIVE PROMOTION WITH BACKPAY TO AN AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE WHEN THE ARBITRATOR FINDS THAT THE AGENCY VIOLATED ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THAT THE VIOLATION RESULTED IN THE DENIAL OF A PROMOTION TO THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE THAT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE RECEIVED. /4/ IN HIS AWARD HEREIN, THE ARBITRATOR SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE AGENCY HAD VIOLATED AN ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE WHEN IT FAILED TO PLACE THE GRIEVANT AT THE HIGHEST GRADE LEVEL FOR WHICH SHE WAS QUALIFIED, AND THE AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT "(I)T IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT 'THE PRACTICES OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE SHOP-- (ARE) EQUALLY A PART OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH NOT EXPRESSED IN IT.'" LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1429, 5 FLRA NO. 35(1981), CITING STEELWORKERS V. WARRIOR AND GULF NAVIGATION CO., 363 U.S. 574, 582(1960). ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S RELIANCE UPON THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CONTRACT LANGUAGE IS MISPLACED. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IN THIS CASE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BACK PAY ACT FOR A FINDING UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OF AN UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED PERSONNEL ACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE AWARD DEFICIENT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) AND SECTION 2425.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. /5/ FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 2425.4 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS SUSTAINED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 29, 1981 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ 5 U.S.C. 5596 (SUPP. III 1979). /2/ 5 U.S.C. 7122(A) PROVIDES: (A) EITHER PARTY TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER MAY FILE WITH THE AUTHORITY AN EXCEPTION TO ANY ARBITRATOR'S AWARD PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATION (OTHER THAN AN AWARD RELATING TO A MATTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7121(F) OF THIS TITLE). IF UPON REVIEW THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT-- (1) BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ANY LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION; OR (2) ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS; THE AUTHORITY MAY TAKE SUCH ACTION AND MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE AWARD AS IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY, CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, OR REGULATIONS. /3/ 5 U.S.C 5596 (SUPP. III 1979) PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: (B)(1) AN EMPLOYEE OF AN AGENCY WHO, ON THE BASIS OF A TIMELY APPEAL OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (INCLUDING A DECISION RELATING TO AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OR A GRIEVANCE) IS FOUND BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, RULE, REGULATION, OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY AN UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED PERSONNEL ACTION WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE WITHDRAWAL OR REDUCTION OF ALL OR PART OF THE PAY, ALLOWANCES, OR DIFFERENTIALS OF THE EMPLOYEE-- (A) IS ENTITLED, ON CORRECTION OF THE PERSONNEL ACTION, TO RECEIVE FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PERSONNEL ACTION WAS IN EFFECT-- (I) AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ALL OR ANY PART OF THE PAY, ALLOWANCES, OR DIFFERENTIALS, AS APPLICABLE WHICH THE EMPLOYEE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE EARNED OR RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD IF THE PERSONNEL ACTION HAD NOT OCCURRED, LESS ANY AMOUNTS EARNED BY THE EMPLOYEE THROUGH OTHER EMPLOYMENT DURING THAT PERIOD(.) /4/ VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LODGE 2201, 4 FLRA NO. 57(1980); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2814 AND FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 3 FLRA NO. 21(1980). /5/ THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, MANAGEMENT COULD HAVE DECIDED TO FILL THE POSITION AT THE LOWEST GRADE LEVEL BY POSTING THE ENTRY JOB ONLY AT THAT LEVEL OR BY SELECTING AN APPLICANT WHO WAS CERTIFIED AS QUALIFIED ONLY AT THE LOWEST GRADE LEVEL. IN THIS REGARD, AS STATED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN HIS AWARD AT PAGE 11: (T)HE (ACTIVITY) IS NOT NECESSARILY IMPEDED BY THE (PAST) PRACTICE FROM MEETING ITS OBJECTIVE OF FILLING A POSITION AT THE LOWEST GRADE LEVEL IN ALL CASES . . . IF THE EMPLOYEE IS CERTIFIED ONLY AT GS-4, THE (ACTIVITY) HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PLACE THAT EMPLOYEE AT A HIGHER LEVEL.