Background and Arbitrator’s Award. The grievant was suspended for five days for inap- propriate behavior and for failure to follow the instruc- tions of her supervisor. The Union filed a grievance on the grievant’s behalf contesting the suspension. Award at 2. The grievance stated that it was filed under the par- ties’ 2003 collective bargaining agreement (2003 agree- ment). Id. The Agency denied the grievance on the basis that it was procedurally defective. Specifically, the Agency alleged that a new collective bargaining argument that the grievance was procedurally defective because it failed to cite the 2006 agreement. Id. at 5. The Union asserted that, even if it cited the wrong agreement, the grievance was not defective because nei- ther the 2003 agreement nor the 2006 agreement requires that a grievance must correctly cite the applica- ble agreement. In addition, the Union noted that the substantive provisions relating to the imposition of dis- cipline are the same in both agreements. Id. In assessing the arbitrability of the grievance, the Arbitrator found that the complaint over the suspension is a grievance covered by the grievance procedure of either agreement. In addition, the Arbitrator found that there is no material difference between the two agree- ments with respect to the substantive provisions relating to the imposition of discipline. She concluded that there was a “meeting of the minds” as to the grievance being covered under a grievance procedure and as to the sub- stantive provisions governing resolution of the griev- ance. Id. at 7. For these reasons, she determined that the grievance was arbitrable and that it was unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute over which agreement governed the dispute. Id. On the merits, the Arbitrator found that the Agency failed to support either charge that provided the basis for the suspension. Accordingly, she directed that the suspension be removed from Agency records and that the grievant be made whole for lost pay. In addi- tion, she stated: “[A]s no justification was presented for removing the grievant from her positions involving [the disputed] duties, those shall also be reinstated.” Id. at 20.
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. 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. 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. 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
