Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-01582/USCOURTS-caDC-94-01582-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Respondent
National Federation of Federal Employees Local 589
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1The statutes relating to Veterans Health Administration personnel were recodified in 1991. 

See Department of Veterans Affairs Health-Care Personnel Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-40, 105

Stat. 187. Thus, 38 U.S.C. § 7421 was formerly codified at § 4108(a), and 38 U.S.C. § 7425(b)

was formerly codified at § 4119. In 1988, Congress redesignated the Veterans' Administration as

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Department of Veterans Affairs Act, Pub. L. No. 100-527,

sec. 2, 102 Stat. 2635, 2635 (1988). The Department of Medicine and Surgery was renamed the

Veterans Health Services and Research Administration, id. sec. 6, 102 Stat. at 2640, and later

redesignated as the Veterans Health Administration. Pub. L. No. 102-40, sec. 2, 105 Stat. 187,

187. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 1, 1995 Decided January 9, 1996

No. 94-1582

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 589,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,

RESPONDENT

Consolidated with

94-1615

-

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Phillip R. Kete argued the cause for petitioners NationalFederation ofFederalEmployeesLocals 589

and 1765. Jeffrey Sumberg entered an appearance for National Federation of Federal Employees,

Local 1765.

William R. Tobey, Deputy Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, argued the cause for

respondent with whom David M. Smith, Solicitor, and James F. Blandford, Attorney, were on the

brief. Wendy B. Bader, Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: GINSBURG, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge: In Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA, 851 F.2d 1486, 1487

(D.C. Cir. 1988), the court concluded that under 38 U.S.C. § 7421 (Supp. V 1993),1 Congress had

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2

In Weingarten, the Supreme Court upheld the Board's determination that under § 7 of the

National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, an employee who is represented by a union has

the right to be represented by the union at an investigative interview that the employee reasonably

believes will result in discipline. 420 U.S. at 256. 

granted the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exclusive discretion to establish regulations relating to the

working conditions of certain medical personnel in the Veterans Health Administration ("VHA"),

including registered nurses, and hence the Secretary need not engage in collective bargaining with

regard to such conditions. Thereafter, in 1991, Congress enacted legislation to provide that such

employees would, in fact, have the same fundamental rights of collective bargaining as other federal

employees under chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code, but with three exceptions, including

that peer review would be non-negotiable. 38 U.S.C. § 7422(a), (b)(2) (Supp. V 1993).

In the instant consolidated appeals the VA denied three registered nurses the right to have a

union representative participate on the record in a peer review investigation of the employee's work

history, and the nurses were fired. Before the court, the National Federation of Federal Employees

Locals 589 and 1765 ("the Union") contend that because the right to have a union representative at

a disciplinary interview is not among the exclusions made in the 1991 amendments and is not barred

by any provision of chapter 74 of title 38 governing VA medical personnel, the Federal Labor

Relations Authority ("FLRA") impermissibly expanded the residual exemptions of title 38. We deny

the Union's petitions for review. Even were we persuaded by the Union's argument that

representationalrights underNLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975),2fallwithin the scope

of the collective bargaining protections of § 7422(a), an issue we need not decide, the VA's decision

to bar union representation would stillfall within the peer review exception ofthe 1991 amendments.

I.

The VA hires registered nurses for a two-year probationary period. 38 U.S.C. § 7403(b)(1)

(Supp. V 1993). If at the end of the probationary period a nurse's work record is not satisfactory,

she will be discharged. Id. § 7403(b)(2).

The VA informed Linda Geoghegan and Betty J. Chamness, registered nurses at the VA

Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi, that a Nurses Professional Standards Board would conduct

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3Although the Union filed its petition for review of the Jackson, Mississippi, case in the Fifth

Circuit, No. 94-40347 (docketed Apr. 26, 1994), the case was transferred to this court because

the 1991 amendments to title 38 restrict venue in cases involving "the applicability of chapter 71

a peer review of their work records during the probationary period. Department of Veterans Affairs,

Veterans Affairs Med. Ctr., Jackson, Mississippi, 48 F.L.R.A. 787 (1993), rev'd, 49 F.L.R.A. 171

(1994), reconsideration denied, 49 F.L.R.A. 701 (1994). The nurses, who were represented by

Local 589, requested that a union steward represent them at the peer review meetings. 48 F.L.R.A.

at 788-89. In accordance with the Secretary's previously issued regulation that an employee "has no

entitlement to legal or other representation" at such peer review meetings, VA Manual MP-5, pt. II,

ch. 4.06(4), the VA did not allow the union stewards to participate on the record, although the

stewards could be present at the meetings. Thereafter, both nurses were discharged. Id.

On behalf of Local 589, the General Counsel of the FLRA filed a complaint with the

Authority. The FLRA initially ruled that 38 U.S.C. § 7422 was inapplicable because that statute dealt

onlywith "collective bargaining" and the representationalrightsin 5 U.S.C. § 7114(a)(2)(B) "are not

tied to collective bargaining." 48 F.L.R.A. at 793. Because the VA had failed to comply with §

7114, the FLRA ordered it to repeat the peer review hearing. Id. at 794-800. However, on

reconsideration in light of the subsequently issued decision of this court in U.S. Department of

Veterans Affairs v. FLRA, 9 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Veterans Affairs), the FLRA reversed its

decision. 49 F.L.R.A. 171. The FLRA explained that it was following the court's decision in

Veterans Affairs that the Secretary had absolute authority to regulate peer review procedures for

certain VA medical personnel, including registered nurses. Id. at 174-75. The FLRA denied Local

589's motion for reconsideration. 49 F.L.R.A. at 704.

In the second, consolidated, case, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Med.

Ctr., Leavenworth, Kansas, 49 F.L.R.A. 1624 (1994), Arlene Wightman, a probationary registered

nurse at the VAMedicalCenter inLeavenworth, Kansas, was denied the right to union representation

at her peer review examination. The FLRA dismissed Local 1765's complaint for the same reasons

as it set forth in the Jackson, Mississippi case. Id. at 1627-28.

The Union filed petitions for review in both cases.35 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Our standard of

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of title 5 to" VA medical personnel to the District of Columbia Circuit. 38 U.S.C. § 7422(e). On

motion of the FLRA, the court consolidated the petitions for review. 

4Section 7421 provides that:

(a) Notwithstanding any law, Executive order, or regulation, the Secretary

shall prescribe by regulation the hours and conditions of employment and leaves of

absence of employees appointed under any provision of this chapter in positions in

the Veterans Health Administration listed in subsection (b).

(b) Subsection (a) refers to the [positions listed in § 7401(1)]. 

5Section 7425(b) provides that:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no provision of title 5 or any

other law pertaining to the civil service system which is inconsistent with any

provision of section 7306 or this chapter shall be considered to supersede,

override, or otherwise modify such provision of that section or this chapter except

to the extent that such provision of title 5 or of such other law specifically

provides, by specific reference to a provision of this chapter, or such provision to

be superseded, overridden, or otherwise modified. 

review is de novo. Veterans Affairs, 9 F.3d at 126. The FLRA is charged with administering chapter

71 of title 5 and has no authority over chapter 74 of title 38. Accordingly, "we owe no deference to

the FLRA's statutory interpretation" in cases dealing with the intersection of the two statutory

schemes. Id.; see also Colorado Nurses, 851 F.2d at 1488.

II.

Briefly stated, most federal employees have been governed since 1978 by the Federal Service

Labor-Management Relations Act, chapter 71 of title 5, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135 (1994). Those labor

rights did not necessarily apply to VA medical personnel, however, because Congress had declared

when it established the Veterans Health Administration in 1946 that "[n]otwithstanding any law,

Executive order, or regulation, the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation the hours and conditions

of employment." Veterans' Administration, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Pub. L. No. 79-

293, sec. 7(b), 59 Stat. 675, 677 (1946), codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. § 7421(a) (Supp. V

1993).4In 1980 Congress reaffirmed that VA medical personnel remained governed exclusively by

chapter 74 of title 38, 38 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7474 (Supp. V 1993), whenever title 5 "is inconsistent

with" title 38. Veterans Administration Health-Care Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-330, sec.

116(a)(1), 94 Stat. 1030, 1039, codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. § 7425(b);5see also Veterans

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

6

"Hybrid" employees currently include:

[c]linical or counseling psychologists who hold diplomas as diplomates in

psychology from an accrediting authority approved by the Secretary, certified or

registered respiratory therapists, licensed physical therapists, licensed practical or

vocational nurses, pharmacists, and occupational therapists.

38 U.S.C. § 7401(3). 

7

"Non-hybrid" employees currently include [p]hysicians, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists,

registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental auxiliaries," 38 U.S.C. §

7401(1), as well as "[p]sychologists (other than those described in paragraph (3)), dietitians, and

other scientific and professional personnel, such as microbiologists, chemists, biostatisticians, and

medical and dental technologists." Id. § 7401(2). 

8Section 7422 provides in part that:

(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this title, the authority of

the Secretary to prescribe regulations under section 7421 of this title is subject to

the right of Federal employees to engage in collective bargaining with respect to

conditions of employment through representatives chosen by them in accordance

with chapter 71 of title 5 (relating to labor-management relations).

Affairs, 9 F.3d at 125-26. In 1983, for purposes largely irrelevant here, Congress created a new

category of VA medical personnel ("hybrid" employees).6 Veterans' Health Care Amendments of

1983, Pub. L. No. 98-160, secs. 201, 203(a), 97 Stat. 993, 1000, codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.

§§ 7401(3), 7403(f)(1), (2). Five years later Congress established that such "hybrid" employees are

subject to title 38 except that "all matters relating to adverse actions, disciplinary actions, and

grievance procedures" are governed by chapter 71 of title 5. Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of

1988, Pub. L. No. 100-322, sec. 221, 102 Stat. 487, 531, codified at 38 U.S.C. § 7403(f)(3). The

registered nurses in the instant cases are "non-hybrid" employees.7See 38 U.S.C. § 7401(1).

In 1991 Congress granted "non-hybrid" VHA employees the right "to engage in collective

bargaining" in accordance with chapter 71 of title 5. Department of Veterans Affairs Health-Care

Personnel Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-40, sec. 202, 105 Stat. 187, 200-01, codified at 38 U.S.C.

§ 7422(a). In the 1991 amendments, Congress carved out three exceptions to § 7422(a); there

would be no right to engage in collective bargaining with respect to "any matter or question

concerning or arising out of (1) professional conduct or competence, (2) peer review, or (3) the

establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee compensation." 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b).8 The

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(b) Such collective bargaining (and any grievance procedures provided

under a collective bargaining agreement) in the case of employees described in

section 7421(b) of this title may not cover, or have any applicability to, any matter

or question concerning or arising out of (1) professional conduct or competence,

(2) peer review, or (3) the establishment, determination, or adjustment of

employee compensation under this title. 

9Section 7114(a)(2) provides in part that:

An exclusive representative of an appropriate unit in an agency shall be

given the opportunity to be represented at

... 

(B) any examination of an employee in the unit by a representative

of the agency in connection with an investigation if

(i) the employee reasonably believes that the examination may result in

disciplinary action against the employee; and

(ii) the employee requests representation. 

10The Veterans Affairs court held that, with respect to "hybrid" employees, "proposals relating

to peer review promotion procedures ... are nonnegotiable under § 7403." 9 F.3d at 125. 

However, because "hybrid" employees enjoy all the rights of "non-hybrid" employees as well as

the particular rights under § 7403(f), the court first had to address whether "non-hybrid"

employees had the right to negotiate over peer review procedures. Id. at 127. 

Secretary determines whether a matter falls within one of the three exceptions, and the Secretary's

determination is not itself subject to collective bargaining and is unreviewable by any other agency.

Id. § 7422(d).

If the nursesin these consolidated appeals were subject to all provisions of chapter 71 of title

5, they would enjoy the Weingarten rights that they claim. Federal employees, in general, have the

right to have a union representative present at "any examination of an employee in the unit by a

representative of the agency in connection with an investigation." 5 U.S.C. § 7114(a)(2)(B).9

However, the court has already indicated how these appeals must be resolved.

Subsequent to congressional enactment of the 1991 amendments to title 38, the court in

Veterans Affairs, relying on the three exceptions set forth in § 7422(b) pursuant to the 1991

amendments, concluded that the Secretary retained "plenary power to prescribe regulations" over

"non-hybrid" employees relating to "peer review."10Id. at 129. Although the court in Veterans

Affairs discussed only the collective bargaining rights enjoyed by "non-hybrid" employees under §

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

11Because the Secretary has exercised his plenary authority to prescribe regulations contrary to

§ 7114(a)(2)(B), we have no occasion to address whether VA medical personnel would have title

5 rights in the absence of a regulation. Cf. United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. FLRA, 1

F.3d 19, 21 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

7422 and not rights under chapter 71 oftitle 5 unrelated to collective bargaining, the limitation of the

discussion to collective bargaining rights necessarily followsfromthe fact that § 7422 deals onlywith

collective bargaining rights, however defined. Consequently, the FLRA persuasively argues, in light

of Colorado Nurses, that because registered nurses are subject to the Secretary's authority under §

7421(a), the Secretary has unfettered discretion with regard to the regulations governing registered

nurses. Section 7425 makes clear that chapter 71 of title 5, or any other section of that title, will not

override or modify title 38 provisions, absent an express statement of such intent. In the FLRA's

view, either the collective bargaining rights conferred in § 7422(a) do not include Weingarten rights

or, alternatively, if the Weingarten rights are collective bargaining rights they fall within the peer

review exception of § 7422(b). Under § 7422(d), the decision whether the procedures at issue are

"peer review" procedures under § 7422(b) lies in the sole discretion of the Secretary (subject to

judicial review). Therefore, we agree with the FLRA's view that the Secretary exercises complete

discretion over peer review procedureswhether the rights in question are characterized as

representational rights that fall within § 7421(a), or as collective bargaining rights that fall within §

7422(b).

The Union'sresponses are unpersuasive in the face ofthis court's precedent. First, it maintains

that "non-hybrid" employees have statutory rights to union representation, unrelated to collective

bargaining, that do not depend on the 1991 amendments. However, the Union's interpretation of the

interaction between chapter 71 of title 5 and chapter 74 of title 38 would effectively repeal the broad

authority granted to the Secretary under § 7421(a) to prescribe regulations "[n]otwithstanding any

law." Since the enactment of § 7422 in 1991, the court has reaffirmed the interpretation of § 7421(a)

set forth in Colorado Nurses, that Congress created the exemption in order to afford the Secretary

control over the conditions of employment for VA medical personnel unrestricted by the regular civil

service system for federal government employees.11 Veterans Affairs, 9 F.3d at 125; Colorado

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Nurses, 851 F.2d at 1489.

Second, the Union contendsthat when Congress enacted § 7422 in 1991, it intended to bring

VA medical personnel under chapter 71 of title 5 except for the three exceptionsin § 7422(b), which

apply only to collective bargaining. In other words, even though the Union cannot bargain over peer

review procedures, the Union maintains that it is assured representational rights at the peer review

hearings even when the Secretary has promulgated contrary regulations under § 7421(a). The Union

relies on a passage in the explanation ofthe 1991 amendments bySenator Cranston, the bill's principal

sponsor and chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who stated that one purpose of the

amendments was "[t]o ensure that title 38 employees are afforded the same fundamental rights as

other Government employeesin terms of their employee-management relations, while protecting the

special professional nature oftitle 38 employment." 137 Cong. Rec. S4543 (daily ed. Apr. 17, 1991).

Yet this general language, as well asthe Senator's other remarks on the bill, id. at S4544, recognizes

that the statute as enacted is a compromise between potentially conflicting purposes. Moreover, the

Union has no explanation for why the "collective bargaining" rights in § 7422(a) should be more

extensive than the exception for "collective bargaining" over "peer review" in § 7422(b).

Third, the Union maintains that the FLRA's interpretation of § 7425 is incorrect because

chapter 71 of title 5 is not among the statutes specifically listed in § 7425(a) as inapplicable to VA

medical personnel. The Union then reads § 7425(b) to allow federal statutes not specifically

enumerated to govern VA medical personnel unless there is a direct conflict with a provision in

chapter 74 of title 38. In the Union's view, because there is no such direct conflict between the

representational right in 5 U.S.C. § 7114 and the exclusion of peer review from the scope of

bargaining in 38 U.S.C. § 7422, § 7114 governs. But the Union's reliance on the omission of chapter

71 of title 5 from § 7425(a) is misplaced because § 7425(a) serves the limited purpose of exempting

VA medical personnel from the Senior Executive Service of title 5. See Explanatory Statement of

Compromise Agreement on H.R. 71021/S. 2534, 126 Cong. Rec. 20,760 (1980), reprinted in 1980

U.S.C.C.A.N. 2557, 2561. More important, § 7425(b), which was originally codified in a different

section from § 7425(a), was enacted to ensure that "no provisionsfrom title 5 or elsewhere (whether

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

heretofore or hereafter enacted) shall be considered to supersede, override, or otherwise modify title

38 provisions unless such other provision does so expressly by specific reference to the title 38

provision." Id. at 20,761, reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2565, quoted in Colorado Nurses, 851

F.2d at 1491. Thus, the Union's argument that chapter 71 of title 5 controls except for a "direct

conflict" cannot overcome § 7425(b)'srequirement that Congress clearlyexpress anintent to override

chapter 74 of title 38.

Congress has gradually extended some of the protections in chapter 71 of title 5 to VA

medical personnel, for example by creating the "hybrid" class of employees in 1983 and by granting

all VA medical personnel limited collective bargaining rights in 1991. Unless and until Congress

decidesto further extend chapter 71 oftitle 5 to VeteransHealthAdministrationemployees, however,

Congress hasmade clearin § 7421(a) the presumption that the Secretaryhas complete discretion over

the conditions of employment of VA medical personnel. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for

review.

USCA Case #94-1582 Document #172718 Filed: 01/09/1996 Page 9 of 9