Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01476/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Association of Civilian Technicians, Schenectady Chapter
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 September 12, 2000 Decided November 7, 2000

No. 99-1476

Association of Civilian Technicians,

Schenectady Chapter,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Labor Relations Authority,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of a Decision and 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 #99-1476 Document #555340 Filed: 11/07/2000 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Henderson, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: "The National Guard has the

dual mission of serving both the state in which the Guard unit

is located and the federal government. The Guard stands

ready to preserve peace and order at the command of state

authorities; and to provide combat-ready units and to control

domestic violence at the President's discretion. See Perpich

v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 110 S. Ct. 2418, 110

L. Ed. 2d 312 (1990). Because the National Guard is not a

full-time active force, it employs civilian 'technicians' to perform administrative, clerical, and technical tasks. These individuals are generally required to be members of the National

Guard unit in which they are employed (32 U.S.C. s 709(b)),

and must wear their military uniforms while they are working. See National Guard Bureau Technician Personnel Reg.

No. 300, p 7-6 (1987); New York Council, Ass'n of Civilian

Technicians v. FLRA, 757 F.2d 502, 505-06 (2d. Cir. 1985).

As federal 'employees' (5 U.S.C. s 2105(a); 32 U.S.C.

s 709(d)), the Guard's civilian technicians are entitled to

engage in collective bargaining regarding certain subjects. 5

U.S.C. ss 7102, 7103(a)(2) & (a)(3); American Fed'n of Gov't

Employees, Local 2953 v. FLRA, 730 F.2d 1534 (D.C. Cir.

1984)." United States Dep't of Defense v. FLRA, 982 F.2d

577, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

When called to active duty, as they are with some frequency, these "dual-status" technicians lose their civilian status

and become members of the armed forces. For obvious

reasons, Congress made it illegal for them or their union to

bargain over the terms and conditions of military service. 10

U.S.C. s 976(c). The issue in this case is whether, in view of

s 976(c), the Federal Labor Relations Authority correctly

refused to order bargaining over the following proposal sponsored by the technicians' union:

If the [National Guard Bureau] decides to afford bargaining unit technicians an opportunity to request leave

under 5 U.S.C. s 6323(d), the [National Guard Bureau]

USCA Case #99-1476 Document #555340 Filed: 11/07/2000 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

shall inform them of that opportunity solely by written

general announcement, such as a bulletin board posting.

The announcement shall not identify by name, position,

or any other individual identifier, any technician eligible

for the opportunity. The general announcement may

state the number of technicians to whom the opportunity

applies and the knowledge, skills, and abilities technicians must have to be eligible for the opportunity. The

announcement shall state that the opportunity is voluntary. The Agency shall not--and the announcement

shall state that the Agency will not--coerce, pressure, or

personally ask any technician to volunteer, and will not

impose any adverse consequence, of any kind, on any

technician, for choosing not to volunteer. If a technician

in response to the general announcement expresses to

the Agency interest in considering the opportunity afforded, the Agency thereafter may communicate directly

with the technician concerning that opportunity.

The dual-status technicians here belong to the 109th Tactical Airlift Wing based in upstate New York. In late 1995, the

109th became responsible for performing airlift operations for

scientific expeditions in Antarctica, missions for which dualstatus technicians may be called into active duty to fly with

the aircraft they maintain. Technicians called to active duty

receive regular military pay plus any available civilian pay.

Or they may volunteer for special pay status, entitling them

to leave with pay from their federal civilian technician jobs for

up to 44 days, but no military pay. See 5 U.S.C. s 6323(d)(1);

10 U.S.C. s 12315(a). The bargaining proposal put forward

by the technicians' union--the Association of Civilian Technicians, Schenectady Chapter--would govern how the National

Guard Bureau informs dual-status technicians of their eligibility to volunteer for active duty by taking leave from their

civilian posts, a special pay status entitling them only to their

civilian salaries while on leave pursuant to 5 U.S.C. s 6323(d).

Among other things, the proposal requires the Guard Bureau

to inform dual-status technicians of this "opportunity"

through a written posting rather than face-to-face, and to

avoid placing pressure on any technicians to volunteer.

USCA Case #99-1476 Document #555340 Filed: 11/07/2000 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The FLRA found the proposal non-negotiable because it

related to a military assignment and would invite bargaining

over a military decision, in violation of 10 U.S.C. s 976(c).

(The FLRA's alternative statutory basis for its decision is

unnecessary to describe because it has been abandoned. See

Association of Civilian Technicians Texas Lone Star Chapter

100, 55 F.L.R.A. 1226 (2000).) Section 976(c) is a criminal

statute. The FLRA does not administer the provision; its

interpretation thus deserves no special respect. See National

Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. FLRA, 179 F.3d 946, 950 (D.C.

Cir. 1999); see also Illinois Nat'l Guard v. FLRA, 854 F.2d

1396, 1400 (D.C. Cir. 1988); New Jersey Air Nat'l Guard,

177th Fighter Interceptor Group v. FLRA, 677 F.2d 276, 281-

82 n.6 (3d Cir. 1982).

In the language of s 976(c)(2), no one may bargain or

negotiate over the "terms or conditions of service of" "member[s] of the armed forces." The phrase "a member of the

armed forces" is defined as:

(A) a member of the armed forces who is serving on

active duty, (B) a member of the National Guard who is

serving on full-time National Guard duty, or (C) a member of a Reserve component while performing inactiveduty training.

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

The union views its proposal as consistent with s 976(c)

because, in bargaining over the proposal, it would be negotiating on behalf of civilian technicians, not "members of the

armed forces." But the status of the technicians at the time

of the negotiation cannot matter. No one would claim that

s 976(c) permitted the union to bargain about the type of

uniform the technicians would wear when they were called to

full-time duty (or training, see 32 U.S.C. s 502(a)(1)). What

does matter is the substance of the proposal to be negotiated.

See United States Dep't of the Navy v. FLRA, 952 F.2d 1434,

1440-42 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

On that score the union thinks its proposal relates only to

conditions of civilian technician employment--that is, how the

USCA Case #99-1476 Document #555340 Filed: 11/07/2000 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

technicians will be informed of the opportunity to volunteer

for active duty at special pay. We agree that the proposal

does this, but it also does considerably more than the union

cares to admit. The FLRA so found and its interpretation

deserves judicial respect. See National Treasury Employees

Union v. FLRA, 30 F.3d 1510, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1994). On the

FLRA's view, the proposal deals with how the technicians will

be paid while on active duty--will they, or will they not,

receive military pay. Wages are a quintessential term of

employment. See Fort Stewart Schs. v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641,

644-57 (1990). The proposal also affects the manner in which

the Air National Guard recalls a technician to active duty.

One of the basic characteristics of all members of the National Guard, including dual-status technicians, is that they are

subject to recall at any time pursuant to 10 U.S.C. s 12301.

The proposal threatens to interfere with the National Guard's

discretion to call technicians into action as it sees fit and on

such terms as it desires. As a legal matter, we see no

difference under s 976(c) between the union's proposal and a

proposal that would flatly prohibit the National Guard from

asking technicians to volunteer for full-time duty without

military pay. The statute would quite clearly ban bargaining

on the latter. We agree with the FLRA that the statute also

bans bargaining on the proposal we have before us.

The petition for judicial review is denied.

USCA Case #99-1476 Document #555340 Filed: 11/07/2000 Page 5 of 5