Background and Arbitrator’s Award. The grievant’s supervisor issued an overall level-two (marginal) rating on the grievant’s annual performance appraisal, and withheld the grievant’s within-grade pay increase on the basis of that appraisal. Subsequently, the Union filed a grievance alleging, as relevant here, that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by rating the grievant’s performance as marginal and withholding her within-grade pay increase. Because the parties were unable to resolve the grievance, the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The Arbitrator issued a two-page award under the expedited arbitration procedures in the parties’ review period” about their performance, and, if a supervisor observes that an employee is performing below level three (meets expectations), then the supervisor must “address the deficiencies at the earliest opportunity by informing the employee about the specific deficiencies with reference to job elements, discussing how she can improve her performance, and providing coaching, mentoring and other development activities to help improve the employee’s performance.”1 Without providing specific examples, the Arbitrator found that the grievant “fell short of expectations on isolated occasions,” but “the evidence [wa]s insufficient to prove that [the] [g]xxxxxxx’s overall performance was marginal.”2 In addition, the Arbitrator held that “the evidence prove[d]” that the supervisor failed to comply with the above-cited provisions of the parties’ agreement.3 As a result, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance. As remedies, the Arbitrator directed the Agency to change the overall rating of the grievant’s performance from marginal to meets expectations; retroactively award the grievant the within-grade pay increase with interest; and otherwise make the grievant whole under the Back Pay Act.4 The Agency filed an exception to the award on July 11, 2019, and the Union filed its opposition on August 7, 2019.
Background and Arbitrator’s Award. The grievant is a nuclear engineer whose job duties include the development of safety documents with a contractor, scheduling Safety Review Board meetings, and ensuring compliance with applicable safety-review procedures. In 2019, the Agency proposed suspending the grievant for conduct unbecoming a federal employee. Instead of effectuating the suspension, the Agency and the grievant executed an alternative-discipline agreement 1 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981).
Background and Arbitrator’s Award. The Agency employs SCTs to organize and sequence information in its disability-claims case folders – a process referred to as “pulling cases.” Award at 4. According to the parties’ Flexiplace
Background and Arbitrator’s Award. The Agency established a new management position – Air Boss – in the air-traffic-control room where bargaining unit air-traffic controllers perform various air-traffic activities. Award at 3. The Agency established the Air Boss position to ensure the safety of flying operations, work with supervisors, and direct all operations if necessary. Id. at 3-4. The Union filed a grievance claiming that the Agency violated the CBA and the MOU by failing to provide it with advance notice regarding the newly established Air Boss position, and by failing to offer to The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency did not violate the CBA or the MOU when it established the Air Boss position. He found that nothing in those agreements could ―in any way be interpreted to require mandatory bargaining‖ in the circumstances of this case. Id. at 7. The Arbitrator found, further, that under ―basic management principles,‖ the Agency has a right to establish management positions. Id. The Arbitrator also found that the Air Boss position has a direct relationship with the supervisors in the air-traffic control room and ―no[] . . . direct[-]line relationship in which Air Bosses 1 In the grievance, the Union also claimed that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. Exceptions, Attach. 6 at 1. However, as discussed infra, that claim was neither part of the stipulated issues before the Arbitrator, nor did the Arbitrator address an alleged statutory violation. See Award at 2. 2 Article 2, Section 1 provides: ―Prior to implementing changes in personnel policies, practices, and procedures subject to negotiations, the employer will provide the union a copy, or make available for checkout, a copy of the proposed changes or new regulation(s).‖ Award at 2.
Background and Arbitrator’s Award. In June 2010, the Agency appointed the grievant to an excepted-service intern position under its Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP).2 The parties entered into an agreement (the STEP agreement), which stated that the grievant’s appointment was a temporary appointment, not to exceed one year, but that the Agency could extend her appointment in one-year increments through the completion of her academic program, if she
Background and Arbitrator’s Award. In December 2017, the Agency requested renegotiations of the parties’ collective-bargaining 1 Exceptions Br. at 11. the Agency’s request. Renegotiations continued past March 2018 – the final month of the most recent rollover period for the agreement – and through the remainder of 2018 and all of 2019.
Background and Arbitrator’s Award
