Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01044/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Association of Civilian Technicians, Tony Kempenich Memorial Chapter 21
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 October 11, 2001 Decided November 9, 2001

No. 01-1044

Association of Civilian Technicians,

Tony Kempenich Memorial Chapter 21,

Petitioner

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.

William E. Persina, Attorney, Federal Labor Relations

Authority, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the

brief was David M. Smith, Solicitor. William R. Tobey,

Deputy Solicitor, entered an appearance.

USCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Sentelle, Randolph and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Sentelle.

Sentelle, Circuit Judge: The Association of Civilian Technicians, Tony Kempenich Memorial Chapter 21 ("the Union")

petitions this Court for review of the Federal Labor Relations

Authority's ("FLRA" or "Authority") decision in which the

FLRA determined that a collective bargaining agreement

provision requiring the Department of Defense ("DOD") to

permit employees to use "official time" to lobby Congress on

pending legislation is contrary to law. In reaching this

determination, the Authority concluded that the disputed

provision would require the agency to use appropriated funds

in a manner prohibited by section 8012 of the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 105-262, 112 Stat.

2279, 2299 (1998) ("Appropriations Act"). Because we agree

with the Authority, we deny the petition for review.

I. Background

The Association of Civilian Technicians, a federal employee

labor organization, filed a negotiability appeal with the FLRA

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. s 7105(a)(2)(E), concerning provisions of

a collective bargaining agreement that had been disapproved

by the head of the agency (the Department of Defense) as

contrary to law under 5 U.S.C. s 7114(c). The disputed

provision would grant official time to "Union officials when

representing Federal Employees by visiting, phoning and

writing to elected representatives in support [of] or opposition

to pending or desired legislation which would impact the

working conditions of employees represented by the labor

organization." Association of Civilian Technicians, Tony

Kempenich Memorial Ch. 21, 56 F.L.R.A. 526 (2000).

The Union argues that sections 7131 and 7102 of the

Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act (the collective bargaining laws) mandate inclusion of this provision.

5 U.S.C. ss 7102, 7131. Section 7131 governs the grant of

"official time," which allows employees performing union representation functions to be paid as if they were at work,

without being charged for annual leave. Under that section,

USCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

union officials may be granted "official time" for a variety of

reasons, including those "in connection with any other matter

covered by [the collective bargaining laws]," so long as such

time is "reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest."

Id. at s 7131(d). Section 7102(1) provides that employees,

acting in their union representational capacity, have the right

to present the views of their labor organization to Congress.

The FLRA has read these sections together to mean that

union representatives may receive official time for lobbying

Congress in matters concerning their working conditions.

See, e.g., National Fed'n of Fed. Employees Local 259, 52

F.L.R.A. 920, 932-33 (1997).

In this case, however, the agency contends, and the Authority agrees, that section 8012 of the Appropriations Act prohibits this application of the collective bargaining laws, at least

with respect to DOD employees. As the Authority held in

New Hampshire Nat'l Guard, 54 F.L.R.A. 301, 310 (1998),

aff'd sub nom. Granite State Chapter, Ass'n of Civilian

Technicians v. FLRA, 173 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 1999), the authorization in s 7131(d) to negotiate for official time, as with

bargaining on any other matter under the statute, is contingent on the bargaining proposal being consistent with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. See National Fed'n of Fed.

Employees Local 2015, 41 F.L.R.A. 1158, 1185 (1991) ("Additionally, official time may be granted for a variety of matters

and parties may negotiate under section 7131(d) for official

time, as long as it is otherwise consistent with the Statute and

other applicable laws and regulations"); American Fed'n of

Gov't Employees, Nat'l Council of Field Labor Locals, 39

F.L.R.A. 546, 553 (1991) (same). Section 8012 of the Appropriations Act provides: "None of the funds made available by

this Act shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to

influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before the Congress." Thus, the Authority concluded that the Appropriations Act precluded, as a

matter of law, the granting of official time for lobbying

Congress on pending matters, though not non-pending, desired, legislation. See 56 F.L.R.A. at 529. In reaching this

decision, the FLRA relied on decisions of the First and Ninth

USCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Circuits in Granite State Chapter, Association of Civilian

Technicians v. FLRA, 173 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 1999) ("Granite

State"), and Association of Civilian Technicians, Silver Barons Chapter v. FLRA, 200 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Silver

Barons"), which addressed virtually identical collective bargaining provisions and identical DOD appropriations act language from previous years. The Authority rejected the

union's argument that similar collective bargaining agreement

provisions were held to be consistent with other anti-lobbying

laws, including 18 U.S.C. s 1913, and section 8001 of the

Appropriations Act. The FLRA observed that "[m]ost of the

Union's arguments presented in this case have been considered and rejected in prior decisions." Specifically, the Authority cited its prior decision in New Hampshire Nat'l

Guard, 54 F.L.R.A. at 310-11, in which the FLRA noted that

section 8012 and its predecessors did not contain the same

exceptions to the lobbying ban as do 18 U.S.C. s 1913 and

Appropriations Act s 8001. Rather, section 8012 and its

predecessors contain an absolute ban on using appropriated

funds for lobbying.

Further, the FLRA held that section 8012 was more specific in scope than 5 U.S.C. s 7131(d), and thus rejected the

argument that the right to official time prevails as more

specific than the prohibition against using "funds made available" for lobbying. It rejected the union's argument that

official time was indistinguishable from paid leave under

section 8012, and that the agency's interpretation would necessarily prohibit lobbying while on paid leave, potentially in

violation of the First Amendment. Instead, the FLRA concluded, as it had previously held in Association of Civilian

Technicians, Old Hickory Chapter and U.S. Dep't of Defense,

North Carolina Nat'l Guard Bureau, 55 F.L.R.A. 811 (1999)

("North Carolina Guard"), that official time and annual leave

were distinguishable. Finally, the FLRA also rejected the

union's argument that its previous interpretation of the forerunner provisions to 8012 was " 'implausible' " given Congress's rejection of legislation that would have banned lobbying on official time for all federal employees. 56 F.L.R.A. at

529. Rather, the FLRA observed that Congress had carved

USCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

out special treatment for DOD employees through the DOD

Appropriations Act. Id.

On motion for reconsideration, the FLRA affirmed its

decision that disapproval of the provision of the collective

bargaining agreement applying to pending legislation was

proper. 56 F.L.R.A. 947 (2000). The Union sought review in

this Court.

II. Analysis

"In reviewing the FLRA's interpretation of its own enabling statute, we are mindful that we owe great deference to

the expertise of the Authority as it 'exercises its "special

function of applying the general provisions of the Act to the

complexities" of federal labor relations.' " NLRB Union,

Local 6 v. FLRA, 842 F.2d 483, 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S.

89, 97 (1983)). Were we reviewing the Authority's interpretation of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act,

we would review that interpretation deferentially under the

standard set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Here, however, we are

also faced with the FLRA's interpretation of the Department

of Defense Appropriations Act, a statute not committed to the

Authority's administration. In general, this Court does not

defer to the FLRA's interpretation of a statute not committed

to the Authority's administration, but reviews such purely

legal questions de novo. See Social Sec. Admin. v. FLRA,

201 F.3d 465, 471 (D.C. Cir. 2000). We have reviewed the

Authority's interpretation of the Appropriations Act under

this de novo standard.

Congress expressed a clear intent to prohibit the use "in

any way" of "funds made available by the [DOD Appropriations] Act" to "influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before the Congress."

Appropriations Act s 8012 (emphasis added). Twice before,

our sister circuits have addressed this very issue, involving

the same labor union, similar, if not identical bargaining

provision language, and identical predecessor DOD appropriUSCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ations acts. Granite State, 173 F.3d at 27-28; Silver Barons,

200 F.3d at 592-93. And unsurprisingly, twice before, our

sister circuits have affirmed the Authority's determination

that the disputed provision was contrary to law and therefore

nonnegotiable. Perhaps the Union believed the third time

would be the charm. It is not. Nothing has changed--not

the crux of the provision in dispute, and not the appropriations act language, and therefore we see no reason to depart

from our sister circuits' good company. The Appropriations

Act prohibits the disputed provision because, as the FLRA

has had several occasions to reiterate, official time may only

be granted to the extent that it is consistent with all "applicable laws and regulations." E.g., NFFE Local 2015, 41

F.L.R.A. at 1185. Here the granting of official time is not

consistent with the Appropriations Act. Hardly more needs

to be said.

The Union also raises a constitutional argument which we

dispense with just as summarily. The Union contends that

the FLRA's treatment of the Appropriations Act raises "serious" First Amendment concerns because it leads to the

"unacceptable conclusion that employee activities on paid

annual leave constitute use of appropriated funds, and that

s 8012 therefore prohibits employees from visiting Members

of Congress while on annual leave." However, this "unacceptable conclusion" is predicated on there being no difference

between annual leave and official time. That is simply not so.

The Authority has reasonably distinguished between official

time and paid annual leave. See North Carolina Guard, 55

F.L.R.A. at 813 (setting out the "critical distinction" between

employee use of official time and annual leave). The collective bargaining laws impose restrictions on the use of official

time that are not applicable to the use of paid annual leave.

Official time is a "distinct third category of time," id., and

unlike annual leave, is considered to be "hours of work." 5

C.F.R. s 551.424(b) (2001). Annual leave is compensation for

work performed at other times. This First Amendment

argument is a red herring. Section 8012, like its predecessors, "does not in any way affect what Union members can do

during their annual leave." Granite State, 173 F.3d at 28 n.3.

USCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Finally, at oral argument, the question arose whether this

interpretation of the Appropriations Act would affect lobbying

by DOD officials (i.e., the Secretary of Defense or other

agency "management") in their official capacity on behalf of

the Department and the Executive Branch. Because this

issue is not before us, rather only a union's use of "official

time," we need not address it, though we do note that

applying section 8012 to DOD officials in their official capacity

would raise constitutional separation of powers concerns not

implicated here. That question would also require us to

inquire into longstanding practices of DOD officials in lobbying Congress, to determine whether their actions have placed

a "gloss" on Congress's action in enacting section 8012. See,

e.g., FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S.

120, 132-33, 137 (2000); Cannon v. University of Chicago,

441 U.S. 677, 696-99 (1979). The agency's continued lobbying

of Congress in the presence of recurring appropriations act

provisions such as section 8012 provides additional background for interpreting such sections not relevant to the case

before us.

III. Conclusion

Because we agree with the Authority that section 8012 of

the Appropriations Act renders the disputed provision contrary to law, we deny the petition for review.

USCA Case #01-1044 Document #637335 Filed: 11/09/2001 Page 7 of 7