December 6, 2004:

M E M O R A N D U M

TO:      FDIC Chapter Presidents

RE:       Arbitration Decision — Travel Stipend Grievance

SUMMARY:  The issue was whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or     Corporation) violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Compensation Agreement and applicable FDIC rules and regulations when it reduced the Grievant’s Frequent Travel Lodging Stipend (FTLS).  The union also alleged that even if the grievant had been    overpaid, the Corporation should have waived the overpayment.  The arbitrator ruled that the FDIC violated both agreements when it reduced the Grievant’s FTLS by a total of $3,300 and ordered the FDIC to reimburse the grievant with interest. 

The FDIC and NTEU entered into an agreement that compensated employees whose duties required frequent (in excess of 50 nights) overnight travel.  The grievant submitted a claim under the agreement to her manager who approved the claim.  The claim was subsequently audited, and the FDIC alleged the grievant was overpaid $2,800 because her travel was related to a detail of more than 120 days for which compensation is excluded under the agreement.  After the grievance was filed, the Corporation found an additional $500 in alleged overpayment.  The union asserted that the grievant was not on a detail as defined by the agreement and agency regulations.  The grievant was assigned to a bank closing, remained in her position and POD, and maintained her Dallas assignments and supervisor. 

The Corporation alleged that the travel engaged in by the grievant was of the type the parties agreed would be excluded from the stipend benefit.  It alleged that the term “detail” and “assignment” are interchangeable in the agreement.  Further it alleged that any benefit was limited to 120 days, because the parenthetical, Category II was merely an example, not a definition of the previous clause of the agreement.

The arbitrator rejected all of the agency arguments finding that the Corporation violated both the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Compensation Agreement when it reduced the grievant’s FTLS claim.  The arbitrator held that the language of the agreement was clear and that the grievant was entitled to $50 per night after 50 overnight stays.  The arbitrator rejected the FDIC’s argument that the grievant’s assignment was a detail and should be excluded from compensation.  The arbitrator also rejected the Corporation’s argument that the Category II parenthetical was not definitive in the exclusion.  All Category I travel over 50 nights for a single assignment should have been compensated.  Since the arbitrator ruled the grievant was entitled to her full FTLS claim, he determined NTEU’s request for the waiver of overpayment was moot.

                                                                                    Colleen M. Kelley

                                                                                    National President