Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                                                    
 
                             March 1, 2001
                                                    
 
 
                            GSBCA 15443-TRAV
 
 
                     In the Matter of JESSE CHAVEZ
 
 
        Jesse Chavez, Yuma, AZ, Claimant.
 
        Lynn  M.  Rizer,  Human Resources  Central  Office,  Labor &
   Employee Relations Division,   Navy Region Southwest,  San Diego,
   CA, appearing for Department of the Navy.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        In January 2000, Jesse Chavez was working for the  Southwest
   Division  of the  Naval Facilities  Engineering  Command at  Camp
   Pendleton, California.  The command assigned Mr. Chavez to attend
   a two-day training program in San  Diego, an hour's drive to  the
   south of Camp Pendleton and  a considerably longer drive from Mr.
   Chavez's home.   The employee attended the program.   The command
   paid  for his  transportation expenses,  but nothing  more.   The
   command and  the employee  disagree as  to whether  travel orders
   should have  been issued for  this assignment and if  so, whether
   the  orders  should  have  authorized  reimbursement  of  lodging
   expenses and a  per diem allowance to cover  meals and incidental
   expenses.
 
        Mr.  Chavez was the president of  the National Federation of
   Federal  Employees (NFFE)  local at  the  facility.   He filed  a
   grievance  under  the  procedures  established  in  a  collective
   bargaining agreement between  the local and facility  management.
   At both  step one and  step two of the  procedures, the grievance
   was denied.   Mr. Chavez, on behalf of  the local, then requested
   that the  grievance be decided by  an arbitrator.   The local did
   not advance the process of  selecting an arbitrator, however, and
   Mr. Chavez  has more  recently sought a  ruling from  the General
   Services Board of Contract Appeals.
 
        In light  of the fact  that the issue presented  has already
   been the  subject of grievance  proceedings, the Board  asked Mr.
   Chavez and the  Navy to address our jurisdiction  to consider the
   claim.  As  we informed the  employee and  the agency, the  Civil
   Service Reform Act provides that generally, collective bargaining
   agreements  are to  provide  procedures  for  the  settlement  of
   grievances,  and that with limited exceptions, the procedures set
   out in  such agreements  "shall be  the exclusive  administrative
   procedures  for  resolving  grievances  which  fall  within   its
   coverage."   5 U.S.C.   7121(a)(1) (1994).   The Court of Appeals
   for the Federal Circuit has consistently held that this law means
   that if a matter is  arguably entrusted to a grievance procedure,
   no  administrative review outside  that procedure may  take place
   unless  the  parties   to  the  agreement  have   explicitly  and
   unambiguously   excluded   that   matter  from   the   procedure.
   Dunklebarger v.  Merit Systems  Protection Board,  130 F.3d  1476
   (Fed. Cir.  1997); see also Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304
   (Fed. Cir. 1992); Carter  v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir.) (en
   banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990).
 
 
        In recognition of the law  and the court's exposition of it,
   this  Board has consistently  dismissed for lack  of jurisdiction
   claims which are  susceptible to resolution through  a collective
   bargaining agreement's grievance procedures.   See, e.g., Kenneth
   J. Hjerpe, GSBCA 15365-TRAV,  01-1 BCA   31,189 (2000);  James M.
   Brewer,  GSBCA  14936-RELO,   99-2  BCA     30,503;  Claudia   J.
   Fleming-Howlett, GSBCA 14236-RELO,  98-1 BCA   29,534; Bernadette
   Hastak,  GSBCA 13938-TRAV,  et al.,  97-2 BCA    29,091.   On the
   other hand, where  matters in dispute are  specifically addressed
   by  statute,  we may  decide  a  claim  even where  a  collective
   bargaining  agreement is  in  place.    Charles M.  Auker,  GSBCA
   15231-TRAV,  00-1   BCA    30,898;   John   B.  Courtnay,   GSBCA
   14508-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   29,791.
 
        The  collective bargaining agreement  between the NFFE local
   and the command  in question provides for resolution  through the
   agreement's grievance procedure  of complaints concerning  "[a]ny
   claimed violation,  misinterpretation, or  misapplication of  any
   law, rule,  or regulation  affecting  conditions of  employment."
   The dispute at  issue falls within this definition.   The command
   believes   that  resolution  is  governed  by  the  Joint  Travel
   Regulations (JTR), which are issued  by the Department of Defense
   and apply to civilian employees of that department.  Neither side
   has  suggested  that  the  matter  may  be  resolved by  specific
   application of  a  statute.   Under  applicable court  and  Board
   decisions, then,  the dispute  would appear  to fall outside  our
   jurisdiction.
 
        Mr. Chavez raises three objections to this conclusion:   (1)
   He is an employee who is exempt from the requirements of the Fair
   Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.    201-219 (1994 & Supp. IV
   1998).   The collective bargaining agreement  contains provisions
   regarding  whether a non-exempt employee is  on duty status while
   traveling.   Therefore, the  agreement does not  apply to  travel
   issues involving him.  (2) The agreement says that "[a]rbitration
   does not extend to the interpretation or change of the Department
   of the  Navy or  higher authority regulations."   The  JTR, since
   they  are  issued  by  a  department  of  which  the  Navy  is  a
   constituent part, are "higher authority regulations."  Therefore,
   arbitration under the  agreement could not address  this dispute.
   (3)  No  other agency  will accept  jurisdiction over  the claim.
   Therefore, this Board should accept jurisdiction.
 
 
        We do  not find any  of these arguments persuasive.   First,
   collective   bargaining   agreement  grievance   procedures   are
   available to  all  members of  a bargaining  unit, whether  those
   members  are  exempt  from  FLSA  requirements  or  not.     This
   agreement's  provisions regarding  a  non-exempt employee's  duty
   status have no  bearing on this case.   In any event,  they could
   not be considered by  this Board because they  involve employees'
   compensation, a subject as to which the Director of the Office of
   Personnel  Management settles employee  claims.  See  31 U.S.C.  
   3702(a)(2) (Supp. IV  1998).  Second, this  collective bargaining
   agreement's exclusion from arbitration  of the interpretation  of
   regulations does not vest this Board with jurisdiction over those
   matters.   The  Court  of  Appeals for  the  Federal Circuit  has
   rejected an argument that such an exclusion removes a matter from
   the  grievance process.    Instead, according  to  the court,  it
   simply  limits an arbitrator's  power; the arbitrator  must hinge
   his  decision  on an  authoritative interpretation  of applicable
   regulations.   Muniz,  972 F.2d  at  1310, 1320-21.  Neither  the
   employee nor the agency contends that there was anything improper
   in sending  the matter  through step  one and  step two of  those
   procedures.    Because   the  collective  bargaining  agreement's
   grievance procedures are the "exclusive administrative procedures
   for  resolving  grievances  which fall  within  its  coverage," 5
   U.S.C.    7121(a)(1),  we have  no jurisdiction  over the  claim.
   Third, even  if no  other administrative  authority may  consider
   this claim,  that does not  give this Board jurisdiction  to hear
   it.
 
        The case is dismissed.
 
                                      _________________________ 
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge