Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 93
Social Security Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923 (Kaplan, Arbitrator), 0-AR-3336 (Decided September 27, 2001)
The Arbitrator upheld in part a grievance that alleged that the Agency violated various regulations and portions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement in connection with the selection and promotion of employees to fill vacancies for Benefit Authorizer (BA) positions in the Agency's Office of Central Operations (OCO). The Arbitrator ordered the Agency to: (1) make whole the employees, hired through external selection procedures, who had wrongfully not been promoted to a GS-7 level for 52 weeks after their appointment to a BA position; (2) make whole the employees, hired through internal selection procedures, who had not been promoted to their appropriate grade level at the beginning of the first pay period following the announcement of their selection as a BA; (3) reveal the bona fide reason for non-selection to the employees who had exercised a priority consideration right to apply unsuccessfully for a position as a BA; and (4) reinstate the priority consideration rights of the employees who had exercised that contractual right in applying unsuccessfully for a position as a BA.
Preliminary, the Authority held that the Union's opposition was timely filed as it was filed within thirty days of the proper service of the exceptions on July 10. Therefore, the Union's opposition was considered. Additionally, the Authority held that it would not take official notice of the National Promotion Plan. The Authority noted that the Plan was in existence at the time of the hearing but was not presented to the Arbitrator for his consideration. Normally, the Authority does not consider documents that were in existence at the time of the arbitration hearing but not presented to the Arbitrator.
The Authority also concluded that the award was not contrary to law, rule or regulation. The Agency alleged that the award was contrary to law because the external selectee failed to satisfy the minimum standards for promotion contained in the Manual. The Authority noted that nothing in the cited regulation prevents arbitral review of the Agency's actions in determining the qualifications of candidates for vacancies. Lastly, the Authority rejected the arguments that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority, that the award failed to draws its essence from the agreement, or that it was based on a nonfact.