Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Austin Service Center and National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 72, 0-AR-3486, May 16, 2003, 58 FLRA No. 132.

An award in which the arbitrator found that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate the grievant's disability was set aside. FLRA said that "[e]ven if the Agency did not provide the accommodation suggested by the doctor, this would not establish that the grievant was unable to perform the essential functions of her job with the accommodation, or that the accommodation was otherwise unreasonable."

The grievant, who had developed carpal tunnel syndrome, brought a letter from her doctor explaining her condition and requested reassignment. She also requested that her keyboarding duties be reduced or eliminated until she could be reassigned. When the agency didn't respond to her request, she filed a grievance which the parties couldn't resolve and the matter was submitted to arbitration.

The arbitrator found, among other things, that management had reduced the grievant's workload by 50 cases a week, pending a final decision on her reassignment request. He also found that the medical information received from the grievant's doctor seemed to preclude the grievant from working and therefore the agency placed the grievant on involuntary, advanced sick leave. He further found that the grievant subsequently returned to her position, where the workload had been reduced, because her doctor released her to do so.

The arbitrator found that the agency didn't violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to reassign the grievant, as requested, because there were no vacancies in the unit to which the grievant sought reassignment. He did, however, find an ADA violation because the agency didn't accommodate the grievant according to her doctor's recommendation that the agency "continue to explore for an accommodation [that] would more realistically address [the grievant's] recurring problems . . . ." As a remedy he ordered the agency to restore the grievant's sick leave and reimburse her for any pay loss, as well as explore alternative employment opportunities for the grievant. The agency filed exceptions.

The Authority concluded, based on the arbitrator's factual findings, that the grievant was provided a reasonable accommodation and therefore his award was deficient.

In reaching this conclusion, we rely on the Arbitrator's factual finding that the grievant's doctor released the grievant "to return to service under the 'adjusted' workload initiated by the Agency." Award at 31. We also rely on the fact that the grievant did return to work, and was able to perform her work, under the adjusted workload.

FLRA found that the arbitrator's finding that the agency didn't reasonably accommodate the grievant wasn't based on a finding that the adjusted workload was unreasonable, but rather on his finding that the agency had an obligation to search for a more reasonable accommodation.

In this respect, the Arbitrator erred. It is well-established, in this regard, that an accommodation "does not have to be the 'best' accommodation possible, so long as it is sufficient to meet the job-related needs of the individual being accommodated." See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app. § 1630.9, p. 362.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In these circumstances -- where an accommodation was provided, the grievant was able to perform her duties with that accommodation, and the Arbitrator provided no legally recognizable basis for concluding that the accommodation was not proper -- we conclude that the award finding that the Agency violated the Act by not reasonably accommodating the grievant is deficient.

The award was accordingly set aside.