United States Department of the Interior v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Docket: No. 93-1213
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; June 24, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
In 1990, the Bureau of Reclamation (DOI) unilaterally removed supervisors from historically mixed bargaining units, leading the unions representing these supervisors to file grievances for lack of notice regarding changes in unit composition, claiming a violation of collective bargaining agreements. The dispute was submitted to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled that DOI had breached the agreements. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) upheld the arbitrator's decision, denying DOI's exceptions. DOI then sought judicial review, but under Section 7123(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), such review is generally prohibited unless it involves an unfair labor practice. The arbitrator's decision was confined to a grievance under the collective bargaining agreements and did not constitute an unfair labor practice. Consequently, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review DOI's petition, resulting in the denial of the petition and the granting of the FLRA's cross-petition for enforcement. The background indicates that supervisory personnel in the Upper Colorado and Great Plains regions had historically been included in mixed bargaining units since the 1960s, with collective bargaining agreements allowing either party to propose changes with written notice. In 1990, DOI announced its intention to remove supervisory foremen without following the agreed-upon notice procedure, referencing a precedent case where the Tenth Circuit had ruled against the FLRA concerning supervisory wages and bargaining unit recognition.
Unions filed grievances against the Department of the Interior (DOI) for violating collective bargaining agreements after DOI unilaterally removed Foremen II and III from the bargaining units. Both parties agreed to arbitration, but could not agree on the issues, leading the arbitrator to frame them as: (1) whether the case was arbitrable, and (2) whether DOI violated the agreements by the removal of foremen. The arbitrator determined that the dispute was arbitrable and that DOI breached the agreements by not providing the required notice of removal.
The arbitrator distinguished this case from a previous ruling in WAPA, emphasizing that, unlike WAPA, there was a historically negotiated agreement placing foremen in the bargaining unit. DOI's argument that the arbitrator's decision conflicted with federal law regarding supervisor inclusion in mixed units was rejected. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) upheld the arbitrator's decision, stating the foremen’s unit status was negotiable and the relevant contract provisions were enforceable. DOI's motion for reconsideration was denied, as it was viewed as an attempt to relitigate resolved issues.
The primary legal question was whether the court had jurisdiction to review DOI's petition under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). The court concluded that it did not, as the FLRA order did not involve an unfair labor practice, thus denying DOI’s petition while also noting the relevance of their previous holding in FLRA I.
The decision in FLRA I, rendered after oral arguments in the current case, highlighted a misunderstanding by both parties regarding its implications. The core issue in FLRA I involved the DOI's unilateral refusal to negotiate the inclusion of Foremen II and III supervisors in historically mixed bargaining units, which the FLRA determined constituted an unfair labor practice. The court established that while DOI had historically agreed to mixed units, it misinterpreted WAPA as justification for its change in position. It was determined that the inclusion of supervisors in these units was a permissive, not mandatory, subject of bargaining; thus, DOI did not violate any duty to bargain by refusing negotiations.
A permissive subject allows parties the option to negotiate but does not obligate them to do so. Consequently, the parties can propose such subjects without risking an impasse. In this case, DOI and IBEW had an enforceable agreement regarding mixed units, but the unions’ claim focused on DOI’s failure to provide contractually mandated notice before removing supervisors from the bargaining units. The arbitrator ruled that DOI's lack of notice constituted a breach of contract, resulting in the automatic renewal of the agreement concerning mixed units. Unlike FLRA I, which addressed statutory bargaining duties, the current case centers on contract obligations; thus, the outcome is governed by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement rather than statutory duties.
If the Department of the Interior (DOI) had provided proper contractual notice regarding the removal of supervisors from bargaining units, it would have concluded the matter, leaving DOI with no further obligations to the unions. Neither the arbitrator nor the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) could have imposed a statutory duty to bargain based on prior bargaining over a permissive subject, which does not become mandatory in future negotiations.
The FLRA claims a lack of jurisdiction to review the order related to the arbitral award because Section 7123(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) restricts judicial review of such orders unless they involve an unfair labor practice. DOI asserts that the case did involve an unfair labor practice. This analysis is guided by the Overseas Education Association v. FLRA decision, which clarifies the meaning of "involve" in this context. The current order does not meet the statutory definition of involving an unfair labor practice, thus the FLRA lacks jurisdiction to review DOI's petition.
The FSLMRS establishes a two-track system for labor disputes: one track for unfair labor practice charges filed with the Authority's General Counsel, and another for grievances pursued through collective bargaining agreements. While limited review of arbitral awards is possible, judicial review is only available if the order involves an unfair labor practice. The OEA decision highlights that a claim could be framed as either an unfair labor practice or a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, with judicial review contingent upon the involvement of a statutory unfair labor practice in the Authority's order. In this case, DOI misinterprets the OEA ruling. The unions did not primarily claim an unfair labor practice; their references were not central to their argument but rather incidental, thus failing to meet the necessary standard for jurisdiction.
The unions argued that the case is governed by contract law, focusing on the automatic renewal and notice clauses in collective bargaining agreements. They distinguished their case from the Tenth Circuit's WAPA decision, which held that the Bureau had no obligation to bargain over removing supervisory employees from mixed bargaining units. The unions' brief fails to cite 5 U.S.C. 7116, relevant to unfair labor practices, undermining their claim. DOI's assertion that the unions pursued an unfair labor practice claim based on minimal references is deemed unfounded and does not meet the necessary legal standards. Both the arbitrator and the FLRA framed the issue as a contractual breach, with the FLRA affirming the arbitrator's decision without mentioning any unfair labor practice provisions. DOI's attempt to reinterpret the arbitrator's findings to suggest an unfair labor practice was committed is viewed as an effort to establish a basis for judicial review, which the FLRA correctly rejected. The conclusion drawn is that the case does not involve an unfair labor practice, leading to the denial of DOI's petition for review and the granting of the Authority’s cross-petition for enforcement.
Prevailing rate employees are federal workers whose wages are based on industry standards rather than the federal General Schedule, determined through a wage survey mechanism. In United States Department of the Interior v. FLRA, 23 F.3d 518 (D.C.Cir. 1994), the court evaluated whether the Department of the Interior (DOI) committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to recognize a mixed unit or negotiate supervisors’ employment terms. The analysis focused on the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and the Prevailing Rate Systems Act, concluding that the inclusion of supervisors in mixed units is contingent upon employer consent, as outlined in Section 704, which only authorizes mixed units if WAPA agrees. DOI's argument for jurisdiction under Leedom v. Kyne, which allows judicial review when an agency exceeds its powers and violates a statutory prohibition, was deemed without merit. The court confirmed that relevant statutes permit mixed units only when agreed upon by the parties, rejecting DOI's claim that the FLRA violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) by certifying a mixed unit in this instance.
