Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01245/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Association of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100
Petitioner
Association of Civilian Technicians, Wisconsin Chapter 26 (Army)
Petitioner
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 16, 2001 Decided June 1, 2001

No. 00-1245

Association of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star

Chapter 100 and Association of Civilian Technicians,

Wisconsin Chapter 26 (Army),

Petitioners

v.

Federal Labor Relations Authority,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Daniel M. Schember argued the cause and filed the briefs

for petitioner.

Judith A. Hagley, Attorney, Federal Labor Relations Authority, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the

brief were David M. Smith, Solicitor, and William R. Tobey,

Deputy Solicitor.

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Henderson,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: The National Guard Technician Act

of 1968, 32 U.S.C. s 709(b), provides that, as a condition of

civilian employment, technicians must, inter alia, be members

of the National Guard and hold the military grade specified

by the Secretary concerned. And s 709(a) of the Technician

Act, 32 U.S.C. s 709(a), specifies that persons are employed

as technicians "[u]nder regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force." Pursuant to this statutory authority, the Departments of the Army

and the Air Force have promulgated regulations prohibiting

military "grade inversion" in the National Guard. Under this

policy, the military grade of a full-time supervisor must equal

or exceed the military grade of personnel supervised. The

grade inversion policy has been clarified to apply to persons

assigned to Wage Leader positions in the National Guard.

In this case, the Association of Civilian Technicians, Texas

Lone Star Chapter 100 ("Texas-ACT"), and the Association

of Civilian Technicians, Wisconsin Chapter 26 (Army) ("Wisconsin-ACT") (together, the "Unions"), the recognized collective bargaining agents for technicians employed by the Texas

National Guard and the Wisconsin National Guard, submitted

bargaining proposals that would have allowed for the assignment of technicians to Wage Leader positions without restriction based on the technicians' military grade. When the

proposals were found to be nonnegotiable by the Offices of

the Adjutant General, the Unions filed negotiability appeals

with the Federal Labor Relations Authority ("FLRA" or

"Authority").

The Authority found that the duty to bargain in good faith

did not extend to the Unions' proposals because National

Guard technicians may not negotiate over military aspects of

civilian technician employment. See Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, 55 F.L.R.A. (No. 196)

1226 (2000), reprinted in Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 10; Ass'n of

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, 56

F.L.R.A. (No. 63) 432 (2000) (order denying motion for reconsideration), reprinted in J.A. 15. This conclusion was based

on the Authority's consideration of three statutory provisions:

10 U.S.C. s 976(c)(2), which prohibits bargaining with, or on

behalf of, members of the armed forces, concerning the terms

or conditions of their service; s 7117(a)(1) of the Federal

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C.

s 7117(a)(1), which prohibits bargaining over matters inconsistent with any federal law; and the aforecited s 709 of the

Technician Act. See Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas

Lone Star Chapter 100, 55 F.L.R.A. at 1229.

We deny the petition for review. The Unions' proposals

are outside of the duty to bargain under 5 U.S.C.

s 7117(a)(1), because they are inconsistent with s 709(b).

See Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter

100, 55 F.L.R.A. at 1229. The legislative history of s 709(b)

clearly supports the Authority's conclusion that, in requiring

civilian technicians to "[h]old the military grade specified by

the Secretary," s 709(b) directs a civilian technician to occupy

a military grade equal to or exceeding that of subordinate

personnel. See, e.g., Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Mont.

Air Chapter, 20 F.L.R.A. (No. 85) 717 (1985), petition for

review denied, 809 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Table). Because our decision rests principally on s 709, we need not

reach the Unions' claim that the disputed proposals are

negotiable subjects because they do not invite bargaining

over a term or condition of military service in violation of 10

U.S.C. s 976(c)(2).

I. Background

The Texas and Wisconsin chapters of the Association of

Civilian Technicians represent technicians employed by the

Texas National Guard and the Wisconsin National Guard (the

"Guards"). National Guard technicians are federal civilian

employees, but they "perform even their civilian tasks 'in a

distinctly military context, implicating significant military

concerns.' " Illinois Nat'l Guard v. FLRA, 854 F.2d 1396,

1398 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting New Jersey Air Nat'l Guard v.

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

FLRA, 677 F.2d 276, 279 (3d Cir. 1982)). National Guard

technicians are, thus, considered to be "dual status" employees. See 10 U.S.C. s 10216; 32 U.S.C. s 709(b). As a

prerequisite for their employment, technicians must be members of the National Guard unit in which they are employed,

maintain the military grade specified for their positions, and

wear their military uniforms while working. See 32 U.S.C.

s 709(b); see also Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Schenectady

Chapter v. FLRA, 230 F.3d 377, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

On March 31, 1995, the Departments of the Army and the

Air Force promulgated National Guard Regulation 600-25

and Air National Guard Instruction 36-102, prescribing the

Guards' military inversion policy, as follows:

Military grade inversion within the full-time work force

is not permitted. The grade inversion concept is inconsistent with the nature of the National Guard. The

military grade of the full-time supervisor must equal or

exceed the military grade of personnel supervised. Unit

of assignment or service component of the individual

does not change this policy.

Personnel General: Military Technician Compatibility, NGR

600-25/ANGI 36-102 at 2-1.a. (Mar. 31, 1995), reprinted in

J.A. 29, 46.

Nearly three years later, the Chief of the National Guard

Bureau for the Departments of the Army and the Air Force

issued a policy guidance, clarifying that the military grade

inversion policy applied to Wage Leaders. See Memorandum

from Steve Nelson, Director for Human Resources, National

Guard Bureau, NGB-HRC 690-500 (Jan. 7, 1998), reprinted

in J.A. 27. Subsequently, in February 1999, the WisconsinACT submitted the following bargaining proposal to the

Wisconsin National Guard:

A Wage Leader employee shall not, as a condition of

employment, be required to hold a military rank which is

equal to or exceeds the military ranks of the employees

with whom the Wage Leader works.

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Memorandum from Leslie J. Hackett, President, Wis. Ass'n

of Civilian Technicians Chapter 26 Army, to Col. James

Krueck, Wis. Nat'l Guard-Human Resources (Feb. 2, 1999),

reprinted in J.A. 21. One month later, the Texas-ACT

submitted a similar proposal:

An employee shall be eligible to apply for, to be selected

for, and to be appointed to, a Wage Leader position, or a

position that requires work with a Wage Leader, without

restriction based on whether the employee's appointment

would result in the Wage Leader having a military rank

below that of any employee with whom the Wage Leader

works.

Letter from Ronald Webb, President, Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, to Gloria Sassman,

Labor Relations Specialist, Texas Adjutant General's Dep't

(Mar. 26, 1999), reprinted in J.A. 51-52.

The Offices of the Adjutant General found both proposals

to be nonnegotiable. See Memorandum from Col. James A.

Krueck, Director, Wis. Nat'l Guard-Human Resources (Feb.

17, 1999), reprinted in J.A. 20; Letter from James D. Bishop,

Labor Relations Specialist, Texas Adjutant General's Dep't,

to Ronald Webb, President, Ass'n of Civilian Technicians,

Texas Lone Star Chapter 100 (Apr. 27, 1999), reprinted in

J.A. 53. The Unions then filed negotiability appeals with the

Authority.

On January 14, 2000, the Authority issued a Decision and

Order dismissing the appeals. The Unions moved for reconsideration, and on June 7, 2000, the Authority denied the

motion for reconsideration. The Unions then filed this petition for review.

II. Analysis

A. Standard of review

Our review of an Authority negotiability determination is

generally narrow. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. FLRA,

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

144 F.3d 85, 88 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Overseas Educ. Ass'n, Inc.

v. FLRA, 858 F.2d 769, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Federal

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute entrusts the

Authority with "resolv[ing] issues relating to the duty to

bargain in good faith." 5 U.S.C. s 7105(a)(2)(E). Review of

a final order of the Authority incorporates s 706 of the

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. s 7123(c).

Thus, when acting "within its authority" and "consistent with

the congressional mandate," the Authority's decision may

only be set aside if it is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 97 & n.7, 98 n.8 (1983).

When the Authority's decision does not " 'derive[ ] primarily' from its interpretation of part of its enabling statute,"

however, and when it construes statutes that it does not

administer, "its interpretation is not entitled to deference."

Dep't of Treasury v. FLRA, 837 F.2d 1163, 1167 & n.5 (D.C.

Cir. 1988); see also Illinois Nat'l Guard, 854 F.3d at 1400.

In the instant case, the Authority's decision rests, in part, on

its interpretation of 10 U.S.C. s 976 and 32 U.S.C. s 709,

legislative enactments that are not part of its enabling statute. "We therefore accord the FLRA's construction of these

statutory provisions no deference, although we shall, of

course, follow its reasoning to the extent that we deem it

sound." Dep't of Treasury, 837 F.2d at 1167.

B. The proposals at issue are outside of the duty to

bargain

Section 7117(a)(1) of Title 5 specifies that the duty to

bargain in good faith extends to matters "not inconsistent

with any Federal law." 5 U.S.C. s 7117(a)(1). The FLRA

found that the Unions' proposals are inconsistent with

s 709(b) of the Technician Act, 32 U.S.C. s 709(b). We

agree.

Subsections 709(b)(2) and (3) of the Technician Act state

that National Guard technicians must be members of the

National Guard and hold the military grade specified by the

Secretary concerned for that position, that is, the military

grade specified by the Secretary of the Army or the SecreUSCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tary of the Air Force. These two subsections were contained

in s 202 of H.R. 2, a bill proposed "to strengthen the Reserve

components of the Armed Forces, and clarify the status of

National Guard technicians," as originally introduced. H.R.

Rep. No. 90-13, at 1, 101-02 (1967). In Title II, which

addressed the status of National Guard technicians, the bill as

reported amended clause (b) of s 709 as follows:

Except as prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a

technician employed under subsection (a) shall, while so

employed, be a member of the National Guard and hold

the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned

for that position.

Id. at 101-02. In the Report accompanying the original bill,

the Committee on Armed Services observed that "[c]lause (b)

convert[ed] to a statutory requirement" that which had long

been the practice of the Secretary concerned, namely "to

designate certain positions as 'officer positions,' others as

'enlisted positions,' which [could] be filled only by individuals

who hold the appropriate grade in the National Guard." Id.

at 58. The Committee recognized the "high correlation between the duties of the technician in his military and civilian

capacities," and concluded that,

[i]n the interest of efficiency and discipline, a military

commander should not be a civilian subordinate of a

member of his unit. Such inversions may be prevented

by authorizing the Secretary concerned to establish the

military grade required for employment in a particular

technician position. Proposed 32 U.S.C. s 709(b) of the

bill would so provide.

Id. at 58-59 (emphasis added).

In the Fall of 1967, the Committee on Armed Services,

considering H.R. 2, agreed to defer action on the section

addressing the status of National Guard technicians until the

second session of the 90th Congress. Senate Comm. on

Armed Services, 90th Cong. 1967-68 Legislative Calendar, at

25 (July 22, 1968). During the second session, the Committee

reported S. 3865, the National Guard Technician Act of 1968.

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

S. Rep. No. 90-1446 (1968). As with Title II of H.R. 2, a

purpose of the bill was to clarify the technicians' legal status.

Id. at 1. Important for present purposes, s 709 clause (b) of

S. 3865 was identical to that contained in H.R. 2. Id. at 40-

41. The Report accompanying S. 3865 expressed the firm

view that "technicians who are required to be military members of the National Guard should occupy a military position

which is compatible with their civilian technician position."

Id. at 20.

The legislative history underlying s 709(b) underscores

three points. First, Congress found compatibility requirements to be essential to military "efficiency and discipline."

Second, Congress intended to maintain the long-time practice

of the Secretary "to designate certain positions" to "be filled

only by individuals who hold the appropriate grade in the

National Guard." Third, in requiring National Guard technicians to "[h]old the military grade specified by the Secretary

concerned," s 709(b) aims, inter alia, to preserve the "high

correlation between the duties of the technician in his military

and civilian capacities." Because the Unions' proposals are at

odds with these purposes, they are "inconsistent with [a]

Federal law" and, consequently, outside the duty to bargain

under s 7117(a)(1). See, e.g., Ass'n of Civilian Technicians,

Mont. Air Chapter, 20 F.L.R.A. at 723-27 (examining legislative history of s 709 and reaching same result).

In short, under the Technician Act, it is clear that a

National Guard technician "must" "hold the military grade

specified by the Secretary concerned for that position," and

that this requirement includes holding a grade that is consistent with the military grade inversion policy. It also appears

undisputed that the Departments of the Army and the Air

Force, implementing the decision of the Secretaries, specified

that there could be no grade inversion in technician Wage

Leader positions. The Authority was therefore fully warranted in finding that the Unions' proposals were nonnegotiable

under s 7117(a)(1).

The Unions point out that the Authority did not find that

s 709(b) grants the agency unfettered discretion to determine

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

military grades. See Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas

Lone Star Chapter 100, 56 F.L.R.A. at 434 n.4. They assert,

additionally, that because statutes granting agencies discretion, but not unfettered discretion, are not bars to negotiation,

see, e.g., Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Admin. Med.

Ctr., Veterans Canteen Serv., 44 F.L.R.A. (No. 16) 162, 163-

65 (1992), their proposals are not prohibited by s 709. This

argument misses the point.

Bargaining over the military grade inversion policy is inconsistent with a federal law. That, by itself, makes the

proposals nonnegotiable. The Authority made this absolutely

clear when it held that, with regard to a matter that might

otherwise be negotiable as a "condition of employment,"

"bargaining will nevertheless be foreclosed if a proposal is

inconsistent with law." Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas

Lone Star Chapter 100, 55 F.L.R.A. at 1229, reprinted in J.A.

13. Further, in its order denying the motion for reconsideration, the Authority emphasized that the Unions' proposals are

"outside the duty to bargain without regard to whether they

are ... within the sole discretion of an agency." Ass'n of

Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, 56

F.L.R.A. at 434, reprinted in J.A. 17 (emphasis and ellipsis in

original). We can find no fault with these holdings.

The Unions contend that the Authority's decision goes too

far in suggesting that any proposal affecting the "military

aspects of technician employment" is outside of the duty to

bargain. There is merit in this contention, but we need not

address the issue. The Authority is correct that the disputed

Union proposals are "inconsistent with law" and, therefore,

beyond the bounds of permissible bargaining. We deny the

petition for review on this ground alone.

III. Conclusion

The petition for review is hereby denied.

So ordered.

USCA Case #00-1245 Document #600108 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 9 of 9