Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 73
National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 73 and United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Cincinnati Service Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (Remington, Arbitrator), 0-AR-3390 (Decided July 23, 2001)
The Arbitrator denied a grievance claiming that certain employees performed higher graded duties without compensation in violation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Authority denied the exceptions after concluding that the Arbitrator did not impermissibly engage in a "classification analysis" in violation of § 7121(c)(5) of the statute.
The Authority noted that under § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute, a grievance concerning "the classification of any position which does not result in the reduction of grade or pay of an employee" is removed from the scope of the negotiated grievance procedures. The term "classification" in § 7121(c)(5) has been construed by the Authority as involving the analysis and identification of a position and placing it in a class under the position-classification plan established by the Office of Personnel Management under chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code.
The Authority explained that it has distinguished between two situations in assessing whether a grievance concerns the classification of a position. Where the substance of a grievance concerns the grade level of the duties permanently assigned to and performed by the grievant, the grievance concerns the classification of a position within the meaning of § 7121(c)(5) of the Statute. However, where the substance of a grievance concerns whether the grievant is entitled to be compensated at a higher rate of pay by reason of having temporarily performed the established duties of a higher graded position, the grievance does not concern the classification of a position within the meanin··___··g of § 7121(c)(5). In this case, the Arbitrator focused on whether the grievants performed the established duties of a higher graded position. Thus, the Authority concluded that the Arbitrator did not engage in a "classification analysis" in violation of § 7121(c)(5) of the statute.