OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
-
Upload
e-frank-cornelius -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
1/54
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE
In the Matter of the Arbitration between FMCS No. 03-03795
Grievant R. Max Smith
OPEIU LOCAL NO. 2001,Union,
and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
Agency._______________________________/
OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR
October 10, 2003
After a Hearing Held June 25-26, 2003At the Federal Office Building in Oak Ridge, Tennessee
For the Grievant:
Kent L. BooherAttorney at Law
The Maxwell Place112 Kingston Street, Suite A
Lenoir City, TN 37771-2926
For the Agency:
S. Shea LunaOffice of Chief Counsel
DOE Oak Ridge Operations OfficePO Box 2001
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
2/54
2
I. INTRODUCTION
I.A. Diversity Case
This is a diversity case. Coming as it does on the heels of the Supreme
Courts recent pronouncements on the subject, Gratz v Bollinger, 156 L Ed 2d
257 (2003) (University of Michigan 1 or UM1) and Grutter v Bollinger, 156
L Ed 2d 304 (2003) (University of Michigan 2 or UM2), the case is
appropriate for consideration in light of the principles just laid down in those
two landmark cases, in which the High Court drew heavily from Justice
Powells principal opinion in Regents of Univ of Cal v Bakke, 438 US 265
(1978) (Bakke).
I.B. Background
Grievant, Ray Maxwell (R. Max) Smith, a professional engineer licensed
in Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Kansas, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Florida, California, and Kentucky, is employed as a metallurgical engineer1 by
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Agency) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
He is a member of Local 2001 of the Office and Professional Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO (Union). Grievant alleges discrimination in the
promotion of [JAF], a native of Puerto Rico and a graduate of the University of
Puerto Rico, to the position of lead nuclear engineer, grade GS-14. Mr. [JAF],
1 As Grievant classifies himself in his grievance filings, AXs 11, 13, and 15, based upon the position
description given him by the Agency. However, he insists that he has not yet been assigned or assumed
any Metallurgical Engineering duties at all. UX 3 @ 8.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
3/54
3
who describes himself as Hispanic in his Application for Federal Employment
SF 171 (AX 6), will be referred to as the Successful Candidate.
The events of which Grievant complains had their genesis back in April
of 1995, when he competed and was selected for a temporary promotion from
nuclear engineer GS-13 to nuclear engineer GS-14. He was detailed from the
Nuclear Safety Division to Enrichment Facilities. Shortly thereafter, the
Successful Candidate, then a GS-13 general engineer, was transferred at his own
request from Nuclear Safety to the Y-12 Site Office. Y-12 is a uranium
manufacturing facility in Oak Ridge.
Grievants work in Enrichment Facilities involved regulatory oversight
under the supervision of J. Dale Jackson. Grievant also became involved with
implementation of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act.2 When responsibility
for Price-Anderson was transferred to Nuclear Safety under Martin H. McBride,
division director (Director), Grievant continued that work, as well as
regulatory oversight under Mr. Jackson.
2 The Price-AndersonAmendmentsActof 1988, PL 100-408, provides indemnification (i.e., compensation
or exemption from incurred penalties or liabilities) to DOE contractors who manage and operate nuclear
facilities in the DOE complex. In essence, the Government acts as an insurer for these contractors againstany findings of liability arising from the nuclear activities of the contractor within the scope of its contract.
As part of its agreement to continue indemnification coverage, in 1988 Congress mandated that the DOE
develop and enforce nuclear safety requirements to minimize the risk of injury to workers and the public.
The DOE must ensure that nuclear activities are conducted in a manner that protects the environment and
human safety and health to achieve this goal. To help accomplish this, Price-Anderson provides the
Agency with enforcement authority for nuclear safety requirements. The requirements of Price-Anderson
are incorporated into the Atomic Energy Act in Section 234A.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
4/54
4
In June of 1997, the Director insisted that Grievant be returned to Nuclear
Safety so that he could work on Price-Anderson fulltime. Grievants detail to
Enrichment Facilities was terminated and he was reduced back to a GS-13, but
the very day after his return, he was sent to the Y-12 Site to work in the
Operations Division. In March of 1998, the Successful Candidate was detailed
from the Y-12 Site Office to the Nuclear Safety Division as a GS-13 nuclear
engineer to serve as acting team leader for the Facility Safety Team, a position
to which Grievant aspired.
This move prompted the first of several memos penned by Grievant, who
viewed it as favoritism shown by the Director toward the Successful Candidate.
In a memo dated March 19, 1998, addressed to Adolphus Brown in personnel
and copied to the Director, Grievant wrote:
I must concur with the team members and conclude it is apparent that the
incumbents appointment to this position was pre-determined; and thatMr. McBrides solicitation to NSD employees was a ruse .
(Contained in UX 3, as well as in other exhibits.)
Following an unsatisfactory meeting with the Director on April 9, 1998,
Grievant wrote a memo to the Director, dated April 20, 1998, reiterating his
concerns and stating:
I am perplexed by your explanation that you held the position open
for an inordinate amount of time to assure that [JAF] had an opportunityto be considered.
I still contend that your selection process constitutes a planned
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
5/54
5
management action. I believe that your selection was not fair andimpartial. (Contained in UX 3, as well as in other exhibits.)
In June of 1998, Grievant was transferred from the Operations Division
to the Y-12 Site Office, and the Successful Candidate was transferred from that
Office to Nuclear Safety. In August of 1999, the Successful Candidate was
temporarily promoted, on a non-competitive basis, to GS-14 lead nuclear
engineer to act as team leader for the Facility Safety Team. He was to occupy
the position held by Terry B. Olberding, who was on detail to Y-12. The
Successful Candidates temporary promotion was for the maximum allowable
120 days.3 After that period, his grade was lowered back to GS-13.
In December of 1999, Vacancy Announcement - # OR 00-68 was posted
for a lead nuclear engineer GS-14 (AX 4). Although the position was advertised
as a temporary one not to exceed one year, under CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT, the Announcement stated:
This position may be extended beyond 1 year without furthercompetition, and may be converted to a permanent position without
further competition.
Eight candidates applied for the position, six of whom were rated highly
qualified by Human Resources (AX 5). Among those making the cut were
Grievant and the Successful Candidate. The other four were Teresa Michelle
3 See Article 17, Section 2.B (AX 7 @ 20).
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
6/54
6
Robbins,4 Randall M. DeVault, Michael R. Jugan, and John David Harris (AXs
5 & 6). The Director appointed a panel of three to screen the six highly qualified
applicants. The panel was headed by Brenda L. Hawks; the other members were
David R. Allen and Daniel K. Hoag.
The Director commissioned the panel to select the top three candidates
and submit their names to him in alphabetical order. Panel members each
independently selected a top three and discovered that each had selected the
same three, although not ranking them in identical order. The top three, listed
alphabetically, were:
DeVault, Randall M.
[JAF]Robbins, Teresa M.
These three names were submitted to the Director in a memorandum dated
February 8, 2000 (AX 10).
The Director himself selected the Successful Candidate, whose
appointment was effective February 13, 2000 (AX 1). Grievant responded with
a grievance directed to Dan Hoag, acting director of the Technical Division (AX
11), in which he sought promotion to a permanent GS-14 grade. Mr. Hoag
denied the grievance in a memorandum dated February 25, 2000 (AX 12).
Grievant moved on to step two of the grievance procedure, March 2,
4 The arbitrator would be remiss if he did not note the praise heaped upon Ms. Robbins for her work in
preventing a plutonium explosion at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Power Plant.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
7/54
7
2000, in a written submission directed to Corey A. Cruz, acting assistant
manager for Defense Programs (AX 13). The Agencys negative response was
delivered in a memorandum dated March 22, 2000, signed by William J.
Brumley, the new acting assistant manager for Defense Programs (AX 14).
Undeterred, Grievant submitted his third-step grievance to G. Leah
Dever, manager of the National Nuclear Security Administration, on March 28,
2000 (AX 15). Ms. Dever enlisted the services of Don R. Sloan, lead contract
specialist GS-14, to conduct a fact finding review of the events surrounding
[the] grievance and report back to [her] on his findings (AX 16 @ 1).
Without addressing legal issues, Mr. Sloan did as requested and reported:
I find no basis that the selection of [JAF] for the GS-13 or GS-14
positions was inappropriate based on the information available to me.UX 1 @ 7.
Ms. Dever then denied the grievance in a memorandum dated June 16, 2000
(AX 16), in which she also rejected Grievants proposed settlement through
promotion to senior weapons quality assurance engineer GS-14.
In an 8-page memo to Ms. Dever, dated June 29, 2000 (UX 3), Grievant
critiqued the Sloan report (UX 1) and expressed his disappointment:
I am disappointed that a review of my fifteen alleged violations of theProhibited Personnel Practices and Merit System Principles was not
undertaken . UX 3 @ 1.
He continued to urge settlement through his promotion to GS-14 as a senior
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
8/54
8
weapons quality assurance engineer (UX 3 @ 7-8).
The Union demanded arbitration. The Successful Candidates temporary
position became permanent, as the Vacancy Announcement had indicated it
might. Apparently further attempts were made to settle the grievance, but they
failed. A hearing was held over two arduous days in the Federal Office Building
at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 25-26, 2003.
Fourteen witnesses testified. Regrettably, no court reporter was hired to
record their testimony, some of which was rather startling. The absence of a
transcript necessitates discussion of the testimony at a length greater than
otherwise would be customary. Grievant was represented by private counsel,
and M. Dalton Cooper, DOE shop chairman, attended on behalf of the Union
and also testified.
I.C. Procedural Preliminaries And Arbitrability
In the Agencys initial response to Grievant (AX 12), it sought to
characterize his complaints as amounting to nothing more than dissatisfaction
over his nonselection for promotion from among a group of properly ranked and
certified candidates. The reason for this posture may be found in ORO O 320,
Chapter VII, Merit Promotions (AX 8). The NOTE to section 1.e(2)(a)
provides:
Nonselection for promotion from among a group of properly ranked andcertified candidates is excluded from both grievance procedures. AX 8
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
9/54
9
@ VII-10.
Oak Ridge Operations Order 320 is incorporated into the collective bargaining
agreement via Article 2, Section 1.A (AX 7 @ 1).
At first, the Agency proposed an initial proceeding to decide the
threshold issue of arbitrability. A briefing schedule was set in a conference call
with the arbitrator, who did not have a copy of the collective bargaining
agreement at that time. After the Agency filed a motion for summary judgment,
dated May 30, 2003, attention was called to Section 4.C of Article 12 of the
collective bargaining agreement, which provides:
In a grievance which includes a question of arbitrability, the arbiter will
hear both this issue and the merits of the case at the hearing but willaddress the arbitrability question as a threshold issue in the decision. AX
7 @ 16.
Accordingly, the parties proceeded with a full hearing on the merits, at which
the Agency made its argument against arbitrability of the dispute, an argument
which it reasserts in its brief.
Another preliminary issue was the attendance of witnesses. In the more
than three years that had elapsed since the grievance was filed in February of
2000, the Director had retired and seemed reluctant to testify. The parties
consulted the arbitrator, who suggested resort to a subpoena pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated 29-5-109 or 29-5-308, but that ultimately proved
unnecessary, as the Director relented and appeared voluntarily.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
10/54
10
Grievants complaints clearly are arbitrable because, as his counsel
explained in opening statement, the issue is not nonselection but discrimination.
In his third-step memo to G. Leah Dever (AX 15), Grievant charged the Agency
with no fewer than 15 violations of Title 5, United States Code. If each Code
subsection cited were in fact violated as charged, then the violations would
number in the dozens. In any event, every grievance by an individual over a
position of necessity will entail nonselection, since only someone passed over
will have standing to complain.
The NOTE to ORO O 320, Chapter VII, section 1.e(2)(a) means only
that a grievance may not be filed over nonselection, standing alone. However,
when nonselection results from a Prohibited Personnel Practice or violation of
the collective bargaining agreement, Merit System Principles, or any law, rule,
or regulation affecting conditions of employment, then an employee adversely
affected may file a grievance, else the negotiated grievance procedure would be
ineffectual. See 5 USC 7121(d); Article 2, Section 1.A (AX 7 @ 1); Article 3,
Section 1 (AX 7 @ 2-3); Article 11, Sections 1.A, B (AX 7 @ 11-12); Article
17, Section 1.D (AX 7 @ 20). Moreover, the selection process itself is subject to
challenge under 5 CFR 335.103(d) (AX 9). The dispute is arbitrable.
I.D. The Collective Bargaining Agreement
And The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
The collective bargaining agreement (AX 7) is entitled Agreement
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
11/54
11
between the Oak Ridge Operations Office and the Office of Scientific and
Technical Information U.S. Department of Energy and the Local No. 268 Office
and Professional Employees International Union (AFL-CIO) December 1995.
Presumably Local No. 2001 has succeeded Local No. 268 and the contract has
been extended, although the parties do not address these issues. See Article 15,
Section 3 (AX 7 @ 18) and Article 30, Section 1 (AX 7 @ 36). Binding laws
and regulations are incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement in
Article 2, Section 1.A (AX 7 @ 1).
In Grievants third-step memo to Ms. Dever (AX 15), he charged the
Agency with violations of 5 USC 2301(b)(1) and (2) and 5 USC
2302(b)(4), (5), (6), (8)(A)(i) and (12)5. The Merit System Principles from the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 USC 2301(b), are contained in Article 3,
Section 1 (AX 7 @ 2-3); the ones relevant to this arbitration are set forth below:
(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals fromappropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from allsegments of society, and selection and advancement should be
determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge,and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that allreceive equal opportunity.
(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receivefair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnelmanagement without regard to political affiliation, race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicappingcondition and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional
5 5 USC 2302(b)(11), as referenced by Grievant, is now (12). PL 105-339.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
12/54
12
rights.
(8) Employees should be (A) protected against arbitrary action,personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes .
Prohibited Personnel Practices are listed in 5 USC 2302(b); the relevant
ones are set forth below:
Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take,
recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respectto such authority
(1) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for
employment - (A) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or nationalorigin, as prohibited under section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. 2000e-16);
(4) deceive or willfully obstruct any person with respect to such
person's right to compete for employment;
(5) influence any person to withdraw from competition for anyposition for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any
other person for employment;
(6) grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, orregulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including
defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements forany position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of
any particular person for employment;
(8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel
action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment
because of - (A) any disclosure of information by an employee orapplicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believesevidences - (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation,
(12) take or fail to take any other personnel action if the taking of or
failure to take such action violates any law, rule, or regulationimplementing, or directly concerning, the merit system principles
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
13/54
13
contained in section 2301 of this title.
I.E. Grievants Charges
Grievants specific charges (AX 15) are as follows; his references to 5
USC 2302(b)(11) have been changed to (12), as previously noted:
1) The NSD Directors design and implementation of a specially prepared position description that carefully incorporated leadership duties with
nuclear engineering duties in early 1998 constitute a violation of 5 USC2302(b)(6).
2) The NSD Directors decision to direct my transfer to another division soas to preclude me from consideration for the GS-13 level Team Leaderposition in early 1998 is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6),
and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
3) The NSD Directors decision to omit me from consideration for the GS-13 level Team Leader position in early 1998 is a violation of 5 USC2302 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
4) The NSD Directors decision to limit the area of consideration for theGS-13 level Team Leader position to interested candidates [within] onlythe NSD in early 1998 is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6),
and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
5) The NSD Directors announcement of the selection of an individual thatwas then located in another Program Office, substantially outside the
announced area of consideration, for the GS-13 level Team Leaderposition in early 1998 is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(4), (b)(6), and(b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
6) The NSD Directors decision to overlook NSD employees that indeed didexpress interest in serving in the GS-13 level Team Leader position inearly 1998 is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(12); and 5
USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
7) The NSD Directors solicitation to NSD employees in early 1998 was nottendered in good faith, which is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(4), (b)(6),
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
14/54
14
and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
8) In the NSD Directors selection of both GS-13 level Team Leader inearly 1998 and the selection for Vacancy Announcement number OR 00-
68, disparate treatment occurred to NSD employees, other highlyqualified applicants, and myself, which constitutes a violation of 5 USC
2302 (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
9) The NSD Director provided favoritism for one employee both for theselection of the GS-13 level Team Leader in early 1998 as well as for the
selection on Vacancy Announcement number OR 00-68, which is aviolation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(6), and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and
(b)(2).
10) The NSD Director pre-selected an individual for both for the selection ofthe GS-13 level Team Leader in early 1998 as well as for the selection onVacancy Announcement number OR 00-68. This is a violation of 5 USC
2302 (b)(6), and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
11) The NSD Director provided an individual the opportunity in early 1998to serve in a GS-13 level Team Leader position. This personnel action
allowed the individual to accrue duties and skills for an extended periodof time to ensure a dominant posture when the position (as was
anticipated) became available, thus constituting a planned managementaction. See McLaughlin v. Callaway [382 F Supp 885 (SD Ala 1974)].
This is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(12); and 5 USC2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
12) The NSD Director manipulated the selection process for the selection ofthe GS-13 level Team Leader in early 1998 as well as for the selection onVacancy Announcement number OR 00-68. As manipulation relates tothe Merit System Principles, this is a violation of 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and
(b)(2).
13) Advertising the position as temporary, when buried in the body ofVacancy Announcement number OR 00-68 is language that permits
conversion to a permanent position with no further competition (which is precisely what has occurred for this position), creates an implicit,
deterring effect on other potential applicants that may not have beeninterested in a temporary position. This is contrary to 5 USC 2302 (b)(5).
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
15/54
15
14) By raising concerns in writing on numerous occasions, my non-selectionon Vacancy Announcement number OR 00-68 is a violation of 5 USC
2302 (b)(8)(A)(i).
15) The NSD Directors misrepresentation of the need for my full-timeservices in June, 1997, thereby causing the loss of my temporary
promotion, then transferring me to the Y-12 Site Office, which wascontrary to the stated need to perform Price-Anderson Enforcement,
constitutes retaliation. This is a violation of 5 USC 2302 (b)(5), (b)(6),and (b)(12); and 5 USC 2301 (b)(1) and (b)(2).
I.F. The Agencys Defenses
In addition to defending on the ground of arbitrability, the Agency insists
that Grievants complaints about the events of 1997-1999 are untimely and may
not be grieved at this late date. The Agency further contends that Grievant has
failed to show that the selection of [JAF] for Lead Nuclear Engineer was
improper. Agency Brief @ 4-7. Grievant has no grounds for complaint because
his job assignments, even the involuntary transfers, were within managements
discretion, which included the right to limit selection to a particular pool of
applicants. Finally, the Agency asserts that the law does not permit a promotion
to GS-14 to be awarded Grievant, inasmuch as such an award would contravene
the rights reserved to Agency management under 5 USC 7106(a) and (b).
Agency Brief @ 7-8.
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
II.A. The Issues Presented
The parties did not agree upon a joint definition of the issues presented;
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
16/54
16
indeed, they did not even agree upon any joint exhibits, so that the collective
bargaining agreement itself was introduced as an Agency exhibit. In the absence
of the parties agreement, the arbiter is empowered to define the issues of that
particular grievance. Article 12, Section 4.A (AX 7 @ 15). The arbitrator
therefore discusses the issues raised by the evidence or by either party in its
opening or closing statement or in its brief.
II.B. The Testimony Of J. Dale Jackson
J. Dale Jackson, GS-15 and Grievants former supervisor, testified on the
latters behalf. Grievant came to work for him during a time of program changes
at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant DOE Site Office in Paducah, Kentucky,
where Grievant had been stationed between 1990 and 1993. In the 1994-1995
time frame, Mr. Jackson, predecessor to the Director, left for the Y-12 Site, to
replace the reactor restart manager, who was retiring.
Mr. Jackson found that safety analysis at Y-12 was chaotic. The
Successful Candidate then was in charge of the safety analysis reports, or
SARs, program, which Mr. Jackson described as out of control. There were
workload problems and communication problems with a major contractor,
Lockheed Martin Corporation. The Successful Candidate was not doing his job.
When the Y-12 site manager left, Mr. Jackson took over that position.
Mr. Jackson was acting site manager in January of 1998, when the Successful
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
17/54
17
Candidate left. After the Successful Candidates departure, the SARs program
was brought under control, and communication with Lockheed Martin
improved.
The Successful Candidate filed a complaint against Mr. Jackson, who
would not have selected the Successful Candidate for the GS-14 team leader
position, due to poor job performance. The Successful Candidate also filed a
complaint against Grievant.
Although Mr. Jackson never promoted Grievant, he believes that
Grievant is capable of functioning as a team leader at the GS-14 level. He
considers Grievants complaints to be reasonable. He described the Directors
request that Grievant be allowed to work fulltime on Price-Anderson as a
pretense.
Mr. Jackson testified that DOE has a strong diversity agenda. In
recruiting, the Agency targets Black6 and Hispanic colleges. Certain positions
are targeted for diversity candidates. When the Secretary of Energy wanted to
fill a position at Paducah with a woman, one was found.
Managers are under very real pressure to select diversity candidates and
never are questioned when they select one. All lateral transfers must go through
6 African-American is used in the University of Michigan cases,supra.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
18/54
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
19/54
19
area of diversity promotion was used as both a carrot and a stick to forcesupport for the agencys diversity agenda. These tactics may help explain
Mr. McBrides actions in preselecting a Hispanic male for a job that wasspecifically created to enhance the promotion opportunities for its
incumbent.
Mr. Jacksons testimony about the Agencys diversity agenda is
corroborated by several exhibits, including the Successful Candidates own
Application for Federal Employment SF 171 (AX 6), in which the Successful
Candidate lists the following awards:
Quality Step Increase, October 29, 1995: for your outstandingand enthusiastic leadership as Manager of the ORO HispanicEmployment Program Advisory Council.
Quality Step Increase, October 30, 1994: In recognition of your dedicated leadership of the ORO Hispanic EmploymentProgram.
Monetary Award for Special Act or Service, March 22, 1994: Inrecognition of your personal contributions to the Hispanic HeritageCelebration .
The Ranking Factors listed in Vacancy Announcement - # OR 00-68
reflect the importance placed upon diversity:
1. Knowledge of concepts, principles, standards, and practices offacility safety.
2. Skill in leadership and experience in coordinating groups ofindividuals specifically in the area of nuclear safety.
3. Knowledge and support of equal opportunity goals and affirmativeaction programs, policies, and responsibilities.
4. Skill in written and oral presentations.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
20/54
20
5. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationshipswith a variety of individuals and groups in a demanding
environment. AX 4; emphasis supplied.
Thus, diversity considerations account for a full 20% of a candidates ranking
and are weighted equally with knowledge of nuclear facility safety.
Form OR-11, Supervisory Appraisal Of Demonstrated Performance,
attached to the Vacancy Announcement, similarly reflects these Ranking
Factors/Basis of Rating, as does the Crediting Plan attached to Form OR 5,
Merit Staffing Request (AX 3). The Crediting Plan elaborates on the diversity
factor as follows:
A Experience which has provided general familiarity with EEO goals
and objectives, or training in Federal AA and EEO policies, orexperience in maintaining working relationships which required
bias-free interpersonal skills for effective performance.
S Direct participation in EEO or affirmative action programs andactivities on or off the job which involved efforts to improve the
utilization of protected class members and/ or to assure theirequitable treatment.
A stands for a required ability, and S for a required skill.
By contrast, the Position Description (AX 2) used in 1998 for the
Successful Candidates predecessor, Terry Olberding, emphasizes technical
competence; e.g.:
Develops, recommends, and interprets ORO policies for the protection ofthe safety and health of workers and the public in accordance with safety
management system concepts. AX 2 @ 2.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
21/54
21
Knowledge of the basic theories and principles of physical science,engineering, safety analyses, risk assessments, safety management,
conduct of operations, and related technical fields sufficient tounderstand, evaluate, and manage facility safety, process safety, and
conduct of operations programs assigned to the Facility Safety Team.AX 2 @ 4.
Work results are considered technically authoritative and are normally
accepted without significant change. AX 2 @ 5.
The scope of work involves a wide range of engineering, physics, andsystem performance understanding such as required to evaluate system
design to ensure that all potential hazards are systematically identifiedand appropriate mitigating measures are taken. AX 2 @ 7.
The total value of operations or projects that the appraisal effort would
include is in the range of several hundred million to several billion
dollars. AX 2 @ 7.
This position is covered by the Technical Qualification Program (TQP).The TQP was established as a result of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board Recommendation 93-3 and requires the incumbent to becompetent in his/her technical discipline as demonstrated by education,
professional certification, examination or on-the-job performance. AX 2,Addendum to Position Description and Performance Plan.
The fact that the requirements for team leader in the Nuclear Safety Division
seem to have been changed so dramatically gives credence to Grievants
allegation that the Vacancy Announcement and selection process were tailored
to the Successful Candidate.
Mr. Jacksons testimony was corroborated by that of his former first
lieutenant, Randall M. DeVault, a finalist in the bidding for the temp-14 team
leader position at issue, who took over for Mr. Jackson when Jackson moved to
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
22/54
22
Y-12. Grievant worked in regulatory oversight with Mr. DeVault, who was told
that Grievant was being transferred back to Nuclear Safety to work on Price-
Anderson, despite DeVaults requests that Grievant be allowed to remain,
because Grievants job in regulatory oversight had not been completed.
II.C. The Testimony Of John David Harris
John David Harris was one of the highly qualified candidates for the team
leader position in dispute. Mr. Harris holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering
from Fairleigh Dickinson University, an M.S. in nuclear engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an M.S. in management from
Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute (AX 6). He did post-masters work in nuclear
engineering at MIT and Rennselaer (AX 6). At the time of his application, he
listed himself as author or coauthor of thirty technical publications (AX 6). He
has 31 years of experience as a nuclear engineer and is a registered professional
engineer.
Mr. Harris has known the Director as long as Mr. Harris has worked for
the Agency; he worked for the Director at the time of his application for team
leader. According to Mr. Harris, the Director does not have a reputation for
truthfulness and could not be trusted. Mr. Harris suspects that the Director was
pressured into selecting the Successful Candidate.
Mr. Harris attended meetings with the Director regarding the acting team
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
23/54
23
leader GS-13 position. The Successful Candidate did not attend these meetings.
The Director was evasive about the position. Mr. Harris believed that the GS-13
position would lead to permanent leadership at the GS-14 level. Mr. Harris was
led to believe that the position was open to employees of Nuclear Safety, only.
He applied, but the Successful Candidate nevertheless was selected from
outside, a point which the Agency concedes in its brief:
[JAF] was selected for the position even though, as the Grievantalleges, he was not a current NSD employee at the time of the selection.
Agency Brief @ 6.
The Agency attempts to finesse the issue by suggesting:
Even assuming that Mr. McBride informed other NSD employees that
the selection for the GS-13 Team Leader position would be made fromwithin the NSD, McBrides selection of Mr. [JAF] does not constitute
favoritism because lateral hires do not have to be selected from within theexisting division. Agency Brief @ 6.
The ready response is that deceit is a Prohibited Personnel Practice, 5 USC
2302(b)(4), and discrimination is against Merit System Principles, 5 USC
2301(b)(2), and also is prohibited, 5 USC 2302(b)(1).
Mr. Harris testified that, at one meeting, the Director stated that no
selection was imminent. Perhaps five minutes after the meeting, he passed by
the Directors office and overheard the Director remark on the telephone that the
Successful Candidate had the job. Mr. Harris testified that, from this moment
on, he knew the fix was in. While the Director did testify before Mr. Harris
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
24/54
24
took the witness stand, the Agency did not recall the Director to rebut Mr.
Harris testimony about the telephone conversation.
Mr. Harris characterized the Successful Candidates selection as an EEO
choice. In his opinion, the Successful Candidate has little technical
understanding and is not technically competent. The Successful Candidate does
not understand the mathematics or the mathematical models used in nuclear
reactor safety analysis. In 4 years of interaction with the Successful Candidate,
he found the Successful Candidate to be wrong 9 out of 10 times. The
Successful Candidate would make reckless technical statements, when he really
did not know what he was talking about, and would override more
knowledgeable professional engineers.
Mr. Harris filed a grievance against Robert William Poe, assistant
manager for Environment, Safety, & Quality, and the Successful Candidate,
because the Successful Candidate attempted to coerce him into signing off on a
report which he did not have sufficient information to approve. The report later
was kicked back. The grievance was settled just the day before Mr. Harris
testified, by a transfer away from the Successful Candidate.
Mr. Harris claims that he did not file a grievance over the Successful
Candidates selection as team leader because he feared retaliation from Mr. Poe.
He has had encounters with Mr. Poe in which Mr. Poe threatened his job in
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
25/54
25
front of witnesses. He claimed to know of at least two instances of actual
retaliation. There have been other threats by Mr. Poe.
Mr. Harris experiences with Mr. Poes temper are shared by Mr. Cooper,
the Union representative, who testified that Mr. Poe became angry at Grievants
questions during meetings. Grievant himself testified that Mr. Poe became quite
upset with him for planning to attend Price-Anderson meetings in the Directors
absence in April of 1997, not long before his exile to Y-12. Mr. Poes demeanor
at the hearing suggested that he was not pleased with the grievance or
arbitration.
Mr. Harris made no attempt to hide the depth of his feelings about the
Successful Candidate and Mr. Poe. While Mr. Harris may have had an ax to
grind, the victim of a hatchet job has a right to wield his own ax. The arbitrator
does not believe that Mr. Harris, with his extensive technical education and long
history of publications, would risk his professional reputation by making
unfounded accusations. The arbitrator credits his testimony, which corroborates
that of J. Dale Jackson, regarding the Successful Candidates poor job
performance.
II.D. The Testimony Of Screening Panel Members
Two members from the Directors screening panel testified, Brenda
Leigh Hawks, appointed by the Director to head the panel (although she never
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
26/54
26
before had served on such a panel), and Daniel K. Hoag. Their testimony was
conflicting in important respects. The conflicts cast doubt on the validity of the
panels assessments.
Ms. Hawks testified that a candidates professional engineering license
was not a factor to be considered; she did not remember which ones had PE
certifications. Neither was an advanced degree a factor. The panel did look at
past performance. The panel did not call references or check the accuracy of
information submitted in the applications. Decisions were made on the basis of
the applications themselves. The applicants were not interviewed because panel
members agreed on the top three.
Leadership qualities, management experience, and customer relations
skills were rated more highly than technical competence. Although she judged
Grievant to be extremely well qualified technically, she rated the Successful
Candidate higher in other categories. She did not feel that the Successful
Candidates experience as acting team leader GS-13 was particularly important.
She conceded that past performance is a good indicator of future success. She
rated Grievant as fourth out of the 6 candidates.
Mr. Hoag testified that the applicants were not interviewed because the
panel was instructed to look at just the applications. He, too, claimed to have
given little weight to the Successful Candidates 13-level acting team leader
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
27/54
27
experience. However, on cross-examination, he conceded that he did note that
experience. He went on to admit that the Successful Candidates experience
weighed heavily, although he didnt know how well the Successful Candidate
actually performed on the job.
Mr. Hoag stated that he considered all information in the applications. He
was not told to disregard unaccredited universities, education, or PE licenses.
Selecting the top 3 was not difficult, because there was a significant gap
between them and the rest of the pack. He did not feel that he had a conflict of
interest in ruling on the first-step grievance (AX 12) after having served on the
screening panel.
In the Sloan report, Mr. Sloan wrote:
In an interview with one of the panel members, it was indicated that
[JAF]s experience was broader than Max Smiths in facility safety andsupervision which included [JAF]s experience working at the Y-12 Site
Office and in the GS-13 Team Leader position in the Facility SafetyTeam, Nuclear Safety Division. UX 1 @ 4.
Mr. Sloan did not identify the panel member of whom he wrote, but the
interview does indicate that at least one panel member took the Successful
Candidates acting team leader 13 experience into account seriously.
From the foregoing, it is difficult to discern just what criteria panel
members used to rate the candidates. There do not seem to have been any
guidelines. It does appear, however, from Mr. Hoags testimony, that some
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
28/54
28
effort was made to discourage panel members from looking beyond the
applications themselves and verifying the information contained in them. As a
result, it is difficult for the arbitrator to credit the panels work, although he does
wonder why all three members rated Grievant no better than fourth.
II.E. The Successful Candidates Application
The Vacancy Announcement (AX 4) specifies a closing date of
01/03/2000. The Successful Candidates application is time-stamped, 01-04-
00P01:46 RCVD. Thus, his application was not filed by the announced
deadline. No mention of the untimeliness of his application was made by
Human Resources, the screening panel, the Director, Mr. Sloan, or the officials
who responded in the grievance steps. Again it appears that the rules were
waived for the Successful Candidate.
The Agency called Adolphus Brown, a Human Resources specialist with
DOE since 1993. On cross-examination, Mr. Brown was shown UX 4,
Comparison Of The Facility Safety Team Leader Position Descriptions,
comparing the duties at the GS-14 level with those at the GS-13 level. The
comparison was prepared by the Director. In the Successful Candidates
application, he stated:
In March 1998, I began Acting Team leader at the GS-13 level. During
this period my duties were precisely as described above for the period ofmy temporary assignment [as GS-14]. AX 6, SF 171 @ 6; emphasissupplied.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
29/54
29
Mr. Brown conceded that the Successful Candidates statement in his
application may not have been true.
In its brief, the Agency effectively confirms the falsity of the Successful
Candidates representations that his duties as a 13 were the same as at the 14
level:
Mr. McBride testified that while Ms. Olberding participated in this program, he assumed her duties and, to assist him with those duties,
created a GS-13 Team Leader position. This position, however, did not
have the same duties and responsibilities as Ms. Olberdings position.
See Union Exhibit 4. On the contrary, as Mr. McBride testified, this GS-13 Team Leader position assumed all the duties of the other GS-13
positions in the Facility Safety Team with the exception of a few
administrative duties. Agency Brief @ 4.
There is other information in the Successful Candidates application
which appears to have been untrue. Most glaringly, on page 8, he claims that he
served as a general engineer GS-14 during the period 12/91-5/95. Based upon
the evidence presented at the hearing, he did not have that much experience at
that high a level, but panel members never questioned it. There appears to have
been a concerted effort throughout the selection process to curb investigation
into the facts.
At the hearing, the Successful Candidates claim to over 3 years
experience at the GS-14 level was brought to the attention of Philip Scott
Barker, in personnel management at Human Resources, but he had no
explanation for it. Mr. Barker signed AXs 3 and 5. He testified that an
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
30/54
30
applicants score is computed from the application. He conceded that erroneous
information in an application could affect the score, but suggested that the
precise effect would be difficult to assess. He admitted that he doesnt know
whether an application is truthful and that there are no safeguards against
misrepresentations.
In its brief, the Agency attempts to dismiss misinformation in the
applications:
Even assuming, as opposing counsel alleged, that other applicants mayhave provided misleading information on their application, that
assumption is irrelevant because, as Mr. Barker testified, the Grievant
was nonetheless ranked Highly Qualified and his application wasreferred to the selecting official for consideration. Agency Brief @ 3.
The fallacy with this argument is that misinformation skewed the ratings which
were utilized in the selection process. Had correct information been used, the
Successful Candidates score undoubtedly would have been lower.
II.F. The Agencys Non-Responses
When a serious charge is made against a party, that party is expected to
rebut it promptly and vigorously, and a failure to do so may be viewed
negatively. Elkouri & Elkouri,How Arbitration Works (ABA/BNA 5th ed 1997)
@ 427-429, 1999 Supp @ 56-57; Hill & Sinicropi, Evidence in Arbitration
(BNA 2nd ed 1987) @ 102. This case involves some very serious charges.
Despite the fact that Grievant elicited strong testimony attacking the
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
31/54
31
Successful Candidates technical competence, the Agency made no effort to
rebut it. Similarly, when the suggestion was made that the Successful Candidate
had falsified his application, the Agency presented no rebuttal. Instead, the
Agency rested on its defense that the dispute is not arbitrable.
The arbitrator views quite negatively the Agencys failure to come
forward with countervailing evidence on these issues. That failure gives
credence to Grievants charge that the Successful Candidates selection was
little more than a diversity appointment.
II.G. The Agencys Explanations
The primary explanations for the events at issue were provided by the
Director himself, an experienced and well educated man (Ph. D. in
bionucleonics) who has worked on high-profile projects, such as clean-up of the
nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. Despite his obvious technical
accomplishments, his testimony was a mass of contradictions, unhelpful in
ascertaining what really transpired.
The Director placed responsibility for termination of Grievants
temporary GS-14 position and his transfer to Y-12 with his boss, Bob Poe. He
also sought to implicate Dale Jackson in the transfer. The Director confessed
that he did not know what course Grievants career might have taken had
Grievant remained at the temp-14 job.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
32/54
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
33/54
33
While there may have been an outside possibility that Ms. Olberding would
return to her position as team leader in Nuclear Safety, the probability was
slight, as she was selected to participate in the Executive Potential Program for
rising stars and had and has her own career goals; she is now a GS-15. The
arbitrator views her interjection into events as a red herring, except to the extent
that the Successful Candidate filled her vacated position.
The Director denied placing the Successful Candidate in the acting team
leader GS-13 position in order to groom the Successful Candidate for a
permanent position at the 14 level. The Director testified that his division was
short of engineers at the 13 level and had no opening for a permanent 14. He
claimed that he wanted a wanted a long-term temporary 14 with great technical
competence. He admitted that he talked with the Successful Candidates
supervisor at Y-12 but claimed that no mention was made of work problems. He
did not talk with the supervisors of other applicants.
Another red herring was the Agencys claim that Grievant was exiled to
Y-12 because he was unhappy in Nuclear Safety. There hardly can be any
debate that Grievant was unhappy with his treatment by that Division, whence
his grievance and this arbitration. It is quite a different matter to suggest that he
was so unhappy that he freely requested a transfer out of the Division, a
suggestion which the arbitrator rejects.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
34/54
34
Mr. Poe testified that Grievant returned to Nuclear Safety to work on
Price-Anderson. He seemed unaware that Grievant was there but a day before
being exiled to Y-12. His understanding was that Grievant had requested a
transfer, which he approved. He did not remember becoming upset with
Grievant not long before the exile, over Grievants insistence on attending an
important Price-Anderson meeting.
In Grievants Brief @ 4, his counsel argues:
No explanation has ever been given by any person, not by MartinMcBride or by Mr. McBrides supervisor[,] Robert Poe, explaining why
Mr. Smith was removed from the regulatory oversight job where his
supervisor wanted to keep him, to the Y-12 site office where he waswithout substantial work for several weeks. In fact the testimony of these
witnesses, both called by the agency[,] contradicted each other[,] eachclaiming the other was responsible for the transfer.
The arbitrator agrees.
In summary, the arbitrator found managements explanations of Agency
actions to be variously vague, evasive, illogical, inconsistent, contradictory, and
ultimately unconvincing. Mr. Sloan expressed some of his own obvious
skepticism about managements explanations with great understatement:
While the purpose of the termination of the detail to AMEF was stated to
be the need for Max Smith to work full time on Price Anderson, this doesnot appear to be the ultimate plan. UX 1 @ 5; emphasis supplied.
By contrast, Grievant and his witnesses painted a largely consistent picture,
which seemed to explain events. In closing argument, Grievants counsel asked,
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
35/54
35
Whom do you believe? The arbitrators answer is Grievant and his witnesses.
II. H. The Arbitration Procedure
5 USC 7121(b)(1)(A) requires that the arbitration procedure in a
collective bargaining agreement be fair. It is not clear that the procedure
applied to Grievant would pass a basic fairness test. The same individual drafted
all of the Agencys responses to Grievants complaints and, at each step, the
signing official had a financial incentive to go along to get along, as
Grievants counsel described the motivation. Moreover, Mr. Hoag, in order to
uphold the grievance at the first step, would have had to second-guess the
recommendations of the very screening panel on which he served.
Melanie Kent, GS-14 and branch manager from Human Resources,
testified on behalf of the Agency. The collective bargaining agreement (AX 7)
was negotiated by members of her office. She drafted each of the Agencys
responses (AXs 12, 14 and 16). She also recommended Mr. Sloan for the role of
fact-finder. She described Grievant as a frequent complainer and echoed the
Agencys refrain that this dispute is not arbitrable.
Ms. Kent viewed with apparent disdain Grievants attempts to gain a
promotion to GS-14 by conditioning his participation in the Personnel Security
Assurance Program (PSAP) on his elevation to that grade. At the Y-12 Site,
Grievant had access to weapons-grade nuclear material. While the PSAP
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
36/54
36
program originally may have been voluntary, at least after the Wen Ho Lee
incident at Los Alamos,8 it became mandatory.
Two of the three weapons quality assurance engineers at the GS-13 level
declined participation in PSAP. When Grievant accepted conditionally, the
Agency refused to accommodate him and instead insisted that he be escorted by
another employee whenever accessing nuclear material. Grievants jockeying
for position earned him 3 days of forced leave, which Ms. Kent insisted was not
disciplinary in nature.
The fact that the same high-level manager drafted all of the Agencys
responses suggests that Grievant was not given the benefit of independent
judgment at succeeding steps of the grievance process, especially not in the first
step, when panel member Daniel Hoag was in charge of the Agencys response.
Cf. the ERISA review requirements in 29 CFR 2560.503-1(h)(3)(ii).9Instead,
it appears that the reviewing managers were constrained to toe the Agency line,
a conclusion made more compelling by the fact that everyone involved in the
review had some indirect financial incentive to uphold diversity.
II.I. The UMCases And The Agencys Diversity Agenda
At issue in UM1 was a selection index utilized for undergraduate
8 See, for example, www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/05/scientist.secrets.ap/.9 Requiring a group health plan to provide for a review procedure that does not afford deference to the
initial adverse benefit determination and that is conducted by an appropriate named fiduciary of the plan
who is neither the individual who made the adverse benefit determination that is the subject of the appeal,
nor the subordinate of such individual.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
37/54
37
admissions, on which an applicant could score a maximum of 150 points. An
applicant was entitled to 20 points based upon his or her membership in an
underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group. In striking down the award of
extra points to diversity applicants, the Supreme Court held:
We conclude, therefore, that because the University's use of race in itscurrent freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve
respondents asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. We further find that the admissions policy also violatesTitle VI and 42 U. S. C. 1981. 156 L Ed 2d @ 284-285; footnotes
omitted.
By contrast, in UM2, the Supreme Court found:
that the Law School's admissions program bears the hallmarks of a
narrowly tailored plan. As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, trulyindividualized consideration demands that race be used in a flexible,
nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that universities cannotestablish quotas for members of certain racial groups or put members of
those groups on separate admissions tracks. See id., at 315-316. Nor canuniversities insulate applicants who belong to certain racial or ethnic
groups from the competition for admission. Ibid. Universities can,however, consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a plus factor in the
context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant. Ibid.156 L Ed 2d @ 336.
In summary, the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the LawSchool's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a
compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a
diverse student body. Consequently, petitioner's statutory claims based onTitle VI and 42 U. S. C. 1981 also fail. See Bakke, supra, at 287(opinion of Powell, J.) (Title VI ... proscribe[s] only those racial
classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the FifthAmendment); General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania,
458 U. S. 375, 389-391 (1982) (the prohibition against discrimination in1981 is co-extensive with the Equal Protection Clause). The judgment
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
38/54
38
of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, accordingly, is affirmed.156 L Ed 2d @ 342.
In the instant case, the Agency appears to use diversity more like the law
school did in UM2 than the way the undergraduate school did in UM1. The truly
distinguishing fact in this case is that here, everyone acting on behalf of the
Agency has a financial incentive to select and uphold the selection of diversity
candidates. There is no mention of any such an incentive in either of the
University of Michigan cases. To the arbitrator, providing managers with a
financial incentive to promote diversity by rewarding them for that promotion
with grade increases, raises, and monetary awards, and denying same if they fail
to go along, is more invidious than granting bonus points directly to the
diversity candidates themselves.
At least in UM1, the aggrieved students literally knew the score, because
the adverse effects of the selection index were readily identifiable and
quantifiable. Here, while the pressure to promote diversity is ever present, its
effects are far more difficult to pinpoint, especially when no one involved in the
process will admit to succumbing to that pressure. Instead, decision-makers
dissemble and attempt to rationalize their behavior. As a result, Grievant can be
expected to prove only that the pressure to promote diversity exists and is
sufficiently strong to influence management behavior, and that the Agencys
explanations for its actions do not hold together. He has done that.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
39/54
39
It remains to be seen just how the principles enunciated in the UMcases
will be applied in the employment context, including the requirement in UM2
that a diversity policy be of limited duration. It does, however, seem clear that
they will be applied, as the Supreme Court noted in UM2:
These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesseshave made clear that the skills needed in todays increasingly global
marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. Brief for 3M et al. as Amici
Curiae 5; Brief for General Motors Corp. as Amicus Curiae 3-4. What ismore, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United
States military assert that, [b]ased on [their] decades of experience, ahighly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the
military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national
security. Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27. 156 LEd 2d @ 334.
It further seems clear that the diversity principles will be applied in
federal employment, inasmuch as footnote 43 fromBakke states:
Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as
that under the Fourteenth Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,93 (1976) (per curiam), citing Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S.
636, 638 n. 2 (1975). 438 US @ 306.
Whatever the implications of the UMcases for federal employment, two
points about the present case are worth noting. First, agenda is used to
describe the promotion of diversity within the Agency, because there was no
evidence of any formal Agency policy, written or oral. The agenda can be
characterized as a practice under which pressure is exerted upon managers to
promote diversity. Second, whatever its form, there is nothing in the collective
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=1#93http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=1#93http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=420&invol=636#638http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=420&invol=636#638http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=420&invol=636#638http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=420&invol=636#638http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=1#93http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=1#93 -
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
40/54
40
bargaining agreement to suggest that such an agenda takes precedence over the
agreement itself.DOD Depts of Army and Air Force Ala Natl Guard and Ala
Assn of Civilian Techs, 55 FLRA 37 (1998) [DOD] (affirmative action plan
may be considered in selecting candidates but does not supersede CBA).
III. APPLICABLE LAW
III.A. Grievants Brief
The Agency cites not a single case in its brief. Grievant, on the other
hand, cites a long line of Supreme Court precedents on various forms of
discrimination: Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc, 530 US 133
(2000) [age]; St Marys Honor Center v Hicks, 509 US 502 (1993) [race];
US Postal Service Bd of Govs v Aikens, 460 US 711 (1983) [race]; Texas
Dept of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248 (1981) [gender];Furnco
Construction Corp v Waters, 438 US 567 (1978) [race]; McDonald v Santa
Fe Trail Transp Co, 427 US 273 (1976) [reverse discrimination];
McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792 (1973) [race].
The principles laid down in these cases are applicable to arbitrations.
Fed Deposit Ins Corp and NTEU, 45 FLRA 437 (1992). Indeed, this case
was triedwithout objectionas though it were one of reverse
discrimination (McDonald, supra and 5 USC 2302(b)(1)), so the arbitrator
briefly reviews those principles.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
41/54
41
In Texas Affairs, the Supreme Court explained the burdens and order
of presentation of proof as follows:
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), we setforth the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof
in a Title VII case alleging discriminatory treatment. First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the
evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiffsucceeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason forthe employee's rejection. Id., at 802. Third, should the defendant
carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to proveby a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered
by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext fordiscrimination. Id., at 804.
The nature of the burden that shifts to the defendant should be
understood in light of the plaintiff's ultimate and intermediate burdens.
The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times
with the plaintiff. See Board of Trustees of Keene State College v.Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24, 25, n. 2 (1978); id., at 29 (STEVENS, J.,
dissenting). See generally 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2489 (3d ed. 1940)(the burden of persuasion never shifts). The McDonnell Douglas
division of intermediate evidentiary burdens serves to bring the
litigants and the court expeditiously and fairly to this ultimatequestion. 450 US @ 252-253; footnote omitted.
In Furnco Construction, the Supreme Court observed that the
McDonnell Douglas methodology is not inflexible:
The central focus of the inquiry in a case such as this is alwayswhether the employer is treating some people less favorably thanothers because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Teamsters v. United States, supra, at 335 n. 15. The method suggestedin McDonnell Douglas for pursuing this inquiry, however, was never
intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic. Rather, it is merely asensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=411&invol=792http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=439&invol=24#25http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=439&invol=24#25http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=411&invol=792 -
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
42/54
42
experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination. A prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas raises an inference of
discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwiseunexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of
impermissible factors. See Teamsters v. United States, supra, at 358 n.44. And we are willing to presume this largely because we know from
our experience that more often than not people do not act in a totallyarbitrary manner, without any underlying reasons, especially in a
business setting. Thus, when all legitimate reasons for rejecting anapplicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer's
actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generallyassume acts only with some reason, based his decision on an
impermissible consideration such as race. 438 US @ 577.
InReeves, the High Court delineated the bottom line:
The ultimate question in every employment discrimination case
involving a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff wasthe victim of intentional discrimination. 530 US @ 153.
In the instant case, after a full hearing and briefing, the arbitrator is
faced with deciding the ultimate question. Grievant certainly made out a
prima facie case of reverse discrimination. McDonald, supra. For purposes
of analysis, the arbitrator credits the Agency with having articulate[d] some
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for [Grievants] rejection. Texas
Affairs, 450 US @ 253. Based upon all the evidence, however, the arbitrator
concludes that Grievant has prove[d] by a preponderance of the evidence
that the legitimate reasons offered by the [Agency] were not its true reasons,
but were a pretext for discrimination.Id.
Grievant has proved, and the arbitrator finds, that Grievant is white
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
43/54
43
and that the Successful Candidate is Hispanic. Grievant was highly qualified
for the position of GS-14 lead nuclear engineer. Had the Agency enforced its
own announced application deadline, the Successful Candidate, whose
application was untimely, would not even have been considered for the
position.
The Successful Candidates application contained material
misrepresentations, so that the ranking of candidates by Human Resources
was unreliable. To the extent that Human Resources or the screening panel
credited the Successful Candidate with experience at Y-12 or as GS-13 or 14
acting team leader, the former experience was of poor quality and the latter
was obtained only as a result of the Agencys favoritism toward the
Successful Candidate and its arbitrary and capricious treatment of Grievant.
The Agencys reasons proffered for its actions were factitious and
fictitious. At each stage of the selection process, the Agency made a
concerted effort to stifle inquiry into the underlying facts. Grievant and his
witnesses have exposed those facts, and their testimony is credible. The
selection process was fatally flawed. Grievant has proved a case of unlawful
discrimination.
The arbitrator largely agrees with the summation of Grievants
counsel:
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
44/54
44
Evidence that Mr. [JAF]s application for the GS-14 Team Leader jobis chocked full of readily identifiable and deliberate
misrepresentations, but ignored by the agencys rating and rankingprocess, or that Mr. [JAF]s application was even accepted after the
vacancy announcement deadline had passed, is further proof that theagency is willing to ignore its own internal rules to accommodate the
selection of diversity candidates for promotion. Mr. Smithsunexplained involuntary transfer from a job that he was successfully
performing and in which he was needed, to another division at a timewhen his own division director untruthfully claimed to need him for
Price-Anderson[,] is more evidence of the agencys pervasive mindsetthat minorities are to be nurtured and promoted while white men are
to be discouraged from seeking promotion and whose advancementopportunities are to be limited or eliminated.
Explanations by the agency for its actions in this matter are either
non-existent or so incredible as to justify finding its actions and
explanations a pretext for discriminatory behavior. Grievants Brief@ 13.
Counsels reference to the agencys pervasive mindset is understood to be
limited to the case at hand, and not to refer to a sweeping indictment of the
DOE at large.
III.B. The Agencys Brief
In objecting to consideration of earlier events (1997-1999), the Agency
fails to quote Grievant fully (Agency Brief @ 2). What he actually wrote was:
These negative actions are further well documented, and not the subject
of this grievance, but do form the foundation for subsequent retaliatoryactions against me. AX 15; emphasis supplied.
The earlier events help put into context the ultimate ones at issue.
Grievant goes on to explain:
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
45/54
45
Specifically, this grievance deals with the favoritism shown toward asingle employee, which excluded other employees from a short-term
opportunity, and which was identified well in advance to lead to apromotion in the long-term. The actions of the NSD Directorconsidered
cumulatively can only [lead to the] conclu[sion] that he tooka series of
distinct personnel actions that led to a predetermined outcome of 1)
providing an opportunity to a single individual to obtain the needed jobexperience, knowledge, skills and abilities, 2) under a specially prepared
position description, that 3) ultimately led to a promotion for thatindividual. AX 15; emphasis supplied.
The arbitrator adopts Grievants perspective, that events must be considered
cumulatively and viewed as a series of distinct personnel actions that were part
of an overall plan to accomplish an impermissible result. See Grievants 15
charges from AX 15, set forth above, especially 15).
Mr. Sloan, the Agencys hand-picked fact-finder, discussed all of these
earlier events in detail and referred to the termination of Grievants temp-14
assignment as being part of an ultimate plan (UX 1 @ 5). The arbitrator finds
that the Agency acted pursuant to a plan, pattern, practice, or other continuing
course of discriminatory conduct, which culminated in 2000 with the Successful
Candidates promotion to GS-14 team leader. The collective bargaining
agreement expressly provides:
A grievance concerning a continuing practice or condition may beinitiated at any time. Article 11, Section 3.B (AX 7 @ 13).
As a result, the grievance was timely, and consideration of earlier events is
appropriate.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
46/54
46
The Agency complains that Grievant is self-centered in the relief he
seeks:
[T]he Grievant only appears concerned with the disparate treatmentshown toward him because his remedy, a permanent GS-14 position, is
focused solely upon remedying his and only his situation. The Grievant isonly concerned that he was not selected for a promotion. Agency
Brief @ 2.
To the arbitrator, this is not a legitimate defense. Grievants case is the only one
before the arbitrator. The rights and remedies of others are not now at issue.
Neither the collective bargaining agreement nor Title 5 requires altruism
on the part of an aggrieved employee. It would be extraordinary if Grievant,
who is paying thousands of dollars for legal representation, were not concerned
for his own welfare. Indeed, he does not have standing to complain of wrongs to
his coworkers.
The Union could have brought a class action grievance under Article 11,
Section 2.B (AX 7 @ 12), but for whatever reasons, it chose not to do so. Other
affected employees have gone their own way. Mr. Brown testified that Mr.
DeVault may be as high as a GS-15 today. Ms. Robbins has moved up to level
14. Mr. Harris did not grieve out of fear of retaliation. Only Grievant matters
here.
Finally, the Agency objects to Grievants proposed remedy of promotion
to grade 14, on the ground that such an remedy would violate managements
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
47/54
47
rights under 5 USC 7106(a) and (b), a valid objection addressed more fully
below. As a general proposition, Title 5 must be read as a whole, including its
proscriptions against the types of behavior in which the Agency has engaged.
An award is being granted not to interfere with the Agencys lawful conduct of
its own affairs, but to remedy its misconduct.
III.C. The Remedy
While finding liability on the part of the Agency is not difficult,
fashioning an appropriate remedy is, because, as the Agency correctly contends,
an outright award of a permanent GS-14 position to Grievant very well might
interfere with managements reserved rights. SBA and AFGE Local 3906, 37
FLRA 137 (1990) [SBA];Health and Human Services Family Support Adm
and NTEU Local 250, 42 FLRA 347 (1991) [HHS];Panama Canal Comm
and Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn, Dist No. 1, 56 FLRA 451 (2000)
[Marine Engineers].
An award of either a promotion or back pay requires a finding that, but
for an agencys misconduct, the aggrieved employee would have been
promoted or received the pay lost. SBA, HHS, Marine Engineers, supra.
Grievant seems to understand this requirement, as he supplied the arbitrator with
copies of the FLRA cases just cited and candidly concedes:
Depriving the grievant of the opportunity to serve in the lower gradedGS-13 Team Leader position that all the witnesses agreed provided the
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
48/54
48
requisite experience to be best qualified for the upcoming GS-14vacancy, placed the grievant in the impossible position of proving that
but for the improper selection, he would have been selected instead.Grievants Brief @ 14.
While the arbitrator can say with confidence that, on the record, Grievant
appears more qualified than the Successful Candidate, the record does not
permit a finding that Grievant was the best qualified of the 6 highly qualified
candidates whose names were submitted to the Director and whose
qualifications were vetted by the screening panel. As a result, the award of a
permanent GS-14 position with back pay cannot be sustained.
What the record will sustain, however, is an award of back pay and
attorneys fees for the Agencys premature termination of Grievants temporary
promotion to GS-14, under the pretext that he was needed in Nuclear Safety to
work fulltime on Price-Anderson. That was about as arbitrary and capricious as
personnel actions get. Over six (6) years after the fact, the Agency still has not
produced a plausible explanation for the move.
The arbitrator finds that it was part of the ongoing plan to discriminate in
favor of the Successful Candidate and against Grievant. But for the Agencys
unjustified and unwarranted personnel action, Grievant would have remained a
temp 14 and continued to earn income and gain experience at that level, at least
through December 31, 1999. He then would have been in a stronger position
either to have applied for the GS-13 acting team leader position or to have
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
49/54
49
competed at the GS-14 level with better experience.
The prerequisites for an award of attorneys fees are set forth at length in
FDIC and NTEU Ch 242, 45 FLRA 437 (1992). Under the standards discussed
there, Grievant is entitled to an award of attorneys fees under both prongs of 5
USC 7701(g). The award is limited, of course, to those attorneys fees
incurred by Grievant in establishing that part of his case dealing with his temp-
14 detail and its premature termination.
Although the record does not justify Grievants promotion to a permanent
14, he has proved Agency violations of the collective bargaining agreement and
Merit System Principles and commission of Prohibited Personnel Practices. As
a result, he must not be left without a remedy. DOD, supra; cf. Fed R Civ P
54(c) ( every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in
whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such
relief in the partys pleadings.).
There are two accepted remedies in a case such as this, ordering a rerun
of the selection process or granting the aggrieved employee priority
consideration for a future position. Veterans Affairs Regional Office and AFGE
Local 2571, 41 FLRA 681 (1991); HHS, supra. Grievant does not mention
rerunning the selection process but rejects mere priority consideration:
Granting the grievant priority consideration for the next appropriate GS-14 position does not appropriately deter the agency in continuing its
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
50/54
50
impermissibly unfair or discriminatory practices. Neither does it make upfor the time and money lost. Grievants Brief @ 14.
If the selection process is not rerun, then the Agency effectively will have
accomplished what it set out to do, namely, to pre-select a diversity candidate,
with virtual impunity. If the selection process is rerun without safeguards, then
the rerun may prove as tainted as the original process. For these reasons, the
arbitrator directs that the selection process for the GS-14 team leader position be
rerun with certain safeguards explained below.
InPanama Canal Comm and Maritime Metal Trades Council, 52 FLRA
404 (1996) (Maritime Trades), the FLRA upheld the arbitrators order that
the evaluation and selection process be rerun as of the date of the original
vacancy announcement, using the original position description without modified
qualifications that had given rise to the grievance. The arbitrator also ordered
that, if the selectee applies, then he should be evaluated without credit for time
spent in the position. The Authority observed that the award did not prevent the
agency from utilizing modified qualifications if no suitable candidate was found
with unmodified qualifications.
The arbitrator adopts the remedy approved in Maritime Trades. The
evaluation and selection process for Vacancy Announcement - # OR 00-68 is to
be rerun as of its original date. If Grievant applies, he must be given credit for
the temp-14 experience for which back pay has been awarded in this opinion. If
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
51/54
51
the Successful Candidate applies, he should not be credited with his experience
as acting team leader at the 13 or 14 level. The reason for these restrictions is to
offset the disadvantage to Grievant and the advantage afforded the Successful
Candidate by the Agencys improper actions.
The rerun must be conducted in accordance with the collective
bargaining agreement, Merit System Principles, and the 5th Amendments due
process guarantee and its equal protection content. No attempt should be made
to suppress inquiry into the truth of information contained in applications. The
Agency might do well to avoid the appearance of impropriety by having the
process conducted by qualified personnel independent of ORO and Y-12.
In ordering a rerun, the arbitrator is not unmindful that a lot of time has
passed since the Vacancy Announcement first was posted. However, the delay
in proceeding with arbitration may fairly be attributed to the Agency. Mr.
Cooper, Union shop chairman, testified that he thought the parties had reached a
settlement, but it fell through. The case should have been settled.AFGE Local
No. 1858 and US Army Aviation and Missile Command, 03-1 ARB 3410
(Cornelius Arb 2003) (declining to award grievant relief beyond promotion
employer had given her). Most importantly, nothing in this opinion should be
construed as preventing the parties from settling the case belatedly.
Unless the case otherwise is settled, the parties should meet within
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
52/54
52
fifteen (15) days of the date of this opinion, in an effort to agree upon the back
pay, attendant benefits, and attorneys fees due Grievant. If they are unable to
agree, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this opinion, each party should
submit to the arbitrator and serve upon the other party, a brief explaining its
position. Factual contentions should be supported by competent affidavits. The
arbitrator then will endeavor to resolve the issues remaining, without the
necessity of a further hearing.
III.D. Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law
The arbitrators principal findings of fact and conclusions of law are
summarized below; other findings and conclusions are interspersed throughout
the opinion without expressly being designated as such:
1. The Successful Candidate was not selected for promotion from among agroup of properly ranked and certified candidates.
2. Grievants complaints are not limited to nonselection.3. The Agency and its management engaged in Prohibited Personnel
Practices.
4. The Agency and its management violated Merit System Principles.5. The Agency and its management engaged in unjustified and unwarranted
personnel actions.
6. The Agency and its management breached the collective bargaining
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
53/54
53
agreement.
7. Grievant has been injured by the practices, violations, actions, andbreaches of the Agency and its management.
8. The Successful Candidate has been afforded preferential treatment.9. Grievant has been a victim of intentional discrimination.
IV. AWARD
A. The grievance is sustained.B. Grievant is awarded back pay and attendant benefits based upon the
differentials between the GS-14 and GS-13 levels, for the period of June
9, 1997 through December 31, 1999, and reasonable attorneys fees. That
is to say, Grievant is awarded the difference between what he would have
earned at the higher level and what he actually earned at the lower one,
plus allocable attorneys fees.
C. The evaluation and selection process for Vacancy Announcement - # OR00-68 shall be rerun in a fair and equitable manner, as of its original date,
as specified in the foregoing opinion.
D. There shall be no retaliation against Grievant or his witnesses.Nothing said by the arbitrator precludes the parties from reaching a superceding
settlement agreeable to themselves.
-
8/8/2019 OPEIU Local 2001 and US Dept of Energy 10-10-03
54/54
Dated October 10, 2003 _____________________________E. Frank Cornelius, Arbitrator