Click here to view the decision.
56 FLRA No. 147
U.S. Department of Defense, Education Activity Arlington, Virginia and Federal Education Association 0-AR-3299 September 29, 2000 (Jascourt, Arbitrator), 0- AR- 3299 (Decided September 29, 2000)
This case is related to three prior arbitration awards (Arbitrators Bloch, Hockenberry and Popular), other issued decisions, and several other arbitration cases pending before the Authority regarding payment of interest on arbitration awards. Two of the underlying arbitration cases (Hockenberry and Popular) were also before the Authority regarding payment of attorney fees pursuant to the Back Pay Act. The payment of interest on the award of backpay was not at issue in those cases. The underlying background is set forth in detail in 56 FLRA No. 119 (September 26, 2000), and will be referred to where necessary in this decision.
Arbitrator Jascourt sustained a grievance finding that the Agency's delayed payments to the grievant of her Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) constituted an unjustified and unwarranted personnel action pursuant to the Back Pay Act, and therefore ordered the grievant be paid interest on the amount payable. The Authority concluded that the Agency did not establish that the award was deficient under section 7122(a) of the Statute.
The Authority noted that Office of Personnel Management regulations implementing the Back Pay Act could not be challenged in this proceeding. The Authority noted that section 7105 of the Statute enumerates the powers and duties of the Authority, none of which relate to passing judgment on rules or regulations that OPM or any other Federal agency has enacted. The Authority further noted that if the Agency wished to challenge the validity of the OPM regulations implementing the Back Pay Act, it may do so in an appropriate Federal district court, not through exceptions to an arbitrator's award. The Authority moved on to conclude that the award was not contrary to law, regulation or sovereign immunity. The Authority also rejected the allegations that the award failed to draw its essence from the parties' agreement, or that it was based on a nonfact.