Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 64
U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. and Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 100 (Bloch, Arbitrator), 0-AR-3362 (Decided June 26, 2001)
The Arbitrator found that the Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by discontinuing its practice of including a night-shift differential in calculations of certain employees' overtime pay. The Authority found that the Agency failed to show that the award was deficient under section 7122(a) of the Statute.
Contrary to the Union's claim, the Authority found that it had jurisdiction over the exceptions. The Authority noted that GPO is an "agency" that is covered by the terms of the Statute. The Statute requires that collective bargaining agreements provide that any grievance not satisfactorily settled under the negotiated grievance procedure shall be subject to binding arbitration, and directs the Authority to resolve exceptions to awards that result from binding arbitration.
The Authority further stated that there was no dispute that this case was brought pursuant to the negotiated grievance procedure set forth in the parties' agreement. The Union argued, however, that § 305 precludes the Authority from addressing the Agency's exceptions because those exceptions should be before the Joint Committee. The Authority explained that under the plain language of § 305, the Joint Committee performs two functions: (1) it approves the parties' wage agreements; and (2) if the parties fail to reach such agreements, then it hears the parties' appeals and renders a "final" decision regarding wages.
Here, the parties were not seeking to have a wage agreement approved and rendered effective, nor did they failed to reach a wage agreement. Rather, they sought an arbitral interpretation of their existing wage agreement, which had already been approved by the Joint Committee. The Authority found no indication in the text of § 305 that, once the parties reached a wage agreement that was approved by the Joint Committee, only the Joint Committee had the authority to interpret and enforce that agreement. The Authority further stated that the record contained no support for concluding that § 305 precluded the Authority from exercising jurisdiction here.
The Authority also rejected the allegation that the award was contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 5544. Noting that § 5544 addresses overtime rates of pay, providing that overtime should be calculated based on one and one-half times the basic hourly rate of pay, that is precisely the way that overtime is calculated in this case. Thus, the Authority concluded that the award was not inconsistent with § 5544. Also rejected was the allegation that the award failed to draw its essence from the parties' agreement.