Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01299/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01299-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Respondent
National Association of Independent Labor
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Submitted April 18, 2012 Decided June 1, 2012

No. 11-1299

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LABOR,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,

RESPONDENT

On Petition for Review of an Order of

the Federal Labor Relations Authority

Neil C. Bonney was on the brief for petitioner.

Rosa M. Koppel, Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, and David M. Shewchuk, Deputy Solicitor, were on 

the brief for respondent. 

Before: HENDERSON, TATEL, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge 

KAVANAUGH.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: A Navy Supervisor of 

Shipbuilding negotiated an agreement with two unions 

regarding the allocation of parking spaces at a shipyard in 

USCA Case #11-1299 Document #1376522 Filed: 06/01/2012 Page 1 of 3
2

Newport News. The agreement governed the parking 

privileges not only of the employees represented by those two 

unions, but also of employees represented by a third union 

that was not a party to the agreement. Under the agreement, 

employees represented by the two unions that were parties to 

the agreement received priority in parking over employees 

represented by the third union. After the Supervisor 

discovered that employees represented by the third union 

would be left without any on-site parking, the Supervisor 

decided not to implement the agreement. The two unions that 

had negotiated the original agreement objected and filed 

unfair labor practice charges with the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority. The FLRA upheld the Supervisor’s decision. The 

case is now before us on petition for review of the FLRA’s 

decision. We deny the petition for review. 

Under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations 

Statute, an agency generally may not repudiate an agreement 

negotiated with a union representing agency employees. See 

5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1), (5); see also American Federation of 

Gov’t Employees, Local 2924 v. FLRA, 470 F.3d 375, 376-78

(D.C. Cir. 2006). But the FLRA “will not find an unlawful 

repudiation where the agreement allegedly repudiated is 

contrary to law.” National Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n, 60 

F.L.R.A. 985, 986 (2005).

The question here, therefore, is whether the original 

agreement was contrary to law. Under the relevant 

precedents, the original agreement was indeed contrary to law 

because it governed the working conditions of employees in

another bargaining unit. See American Federation of Gov’t

Employees, Local 32 v. FLRA (AFGE), 110 F.3d 810, 815-16

(D.C. Cir. 1997); Dep’t of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, 

Cherry Point, North Carolina v. FLRA (Cherry Point), 952 

F.2d 1434, 1441-43 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see also 5 U.S.C. 

USCA Case #11-1299 Document #1376522 Filed: 06/01/2012 Page 2 of 3
3

§ 7114(a)(1). In Cherry Point, which is the precedent most 

on point, we specifically held that it “would be counter to 

basic principles of labor law” for a labor agreement to 

“define[] parking privileges not just for members of the 

union’s bargaining unit, but also for members of other 

bargaining units.” AFGE, 110 F.3d at 815 (summarizing

Cherry Point, 952 F.2d 1434). Here, too, the original 

agreement between the two unions and the Supervisor defined 

the parking privileges of members of another bargaining unit. 

The agreement was thus contrary to law. Therefore, the 

Supervisor properly refused to implement it, and the FLRA 

properly upheld the Supervisor’s decision. 

We deny the petition for review.

So ordered.

USCA Case #11-1299 Document #1376522 Filed: 06/01/2012 Page 3 of 3