i'm kerry adams for the national treasury employees union were seeking review of a decision by the federal labor relations authority the authority misconstrued legal principles here are really understood and agency that has discretion over a condition of employment that isn't controlled by law has to bargain under title five what's the relevant agent here agency here the relevant agency it's a controller of the current currency they are not also the treasury department while the treasury department has been removed from the pay starting to some degree and this much of it has to do with starting pay whereas for eighty two that they enacted the only statute that gives a controller authority to act without the treasury department and it was an acted after the bargain provisions of title five came into effect they wrote an entirely new system and this is none of this is subject to the treasury department and i don't think that where congress has replaced the system has set out the new rules ok controller can act on these issues has  to do certain things and here are the rules said pay this way and congress did not delete treasury from forty one they did not bring that without regard to any law over into four eighty two on the contrary they considered that broader preemption language and they took it out of the bill and they left just the narrow preemption language without regard to classification of pay which everybody agrees taking that language itself does not preempt marketing it leaves barking duty of title five in place plus in forty two they  put in place other limitations that contradict the notion that there's an father unfettered discretion here by the controller additional compensation and benefits they can they can pay but only if the other sister agencies and if asked of the total package the amount of money the entire package cost they shall consult with their sister agencies and seek comparability and that stewart pay is just another condition of employment you have to bargain over it and there was a comparability provision in there too and that the total expense of running the military school should be the same or comparable to the local schools and they said well that's not non discretionary that's subject to bargaining so in summary we think that four eighty two which  majority to to put any further constraint the discretion to set compensation in fact the whole point was to give as much flexibility as possible to the office of the comptroller the currency like the other financial regulatory constrains the discretion of their at their bar in the sequence it requires them to consult with it and to look to comparability as a as a as a measure in determining compensation but it does not require long standing and brought authority under section four eighty one of its compensation authority relieved him of the obligation to bargain comments with the union the unions argument language emphasizes that the controller should exercise his preexisting authority independently from the treasury department and it also confirms and but in fact on this point as for the direction to consult with other agencies that provision was in there is to actually do as well and they just blew rest they did which is strange in light of what the supreme court said about the comparable pay