Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 121
AFGE, Local 1698 and U.S. Dept. of The Navy, Naval Inventory Control Point, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Myers, Arbitrator), 0-AR-3431 (Decided December 7, 2001)
The Arbitrator found that the Agency properly implemented a reduction in force (RIF) and denied the Union's grievance. The Authority concluded that the Union did not demonstrate that the Arbitrator's award was deficient, and denied the Union's exceptions.
The Authority concluded that the award was not contrary to law, as alleged. It noted that under 5 C.F.R. § 351.302(a), when a transfer of function occurs in connection with a RIF, an agency must first identify employees to be transferred --along with the function -- to the new competitive area. Two methods for identifying such employees are provided in § 351.303. Method One, which the Agency used in this case, identifies employees who perform the transferring function at least half of their work time, or whose grade-controlling duties consist of the transferring function. Method Two, which the Union claimed should have been used, requires an agency to use a retention register. After employees have been identified, then each competing employee in a position identified shall be transferred.
The Authority found that the Union had not demonstrated that the Agency was required to transfer all affected employees to the new competitive area prior to the RIF. Similarly, the Union did not demonstrate that the function of employees who were separated in the RIF were transferred, within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 351.302(c), such that those employees' rights were violated when they were not transferred. Additionally, the Authority found that the Union also did not demonstrate that the Agency was required to use Method Two to identify employees for transfer. Accordingly, this argument was rejected. Lastly, the Authority found that the award did not fail to draw its essence from the agreement, nor that it was based on a nonfact.