Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01522/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01522-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Respondent
United States Department of Transportation
Petitioner

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 April 23, 1998 Decided June 26, 1998

No. 97-1522

United States Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Labor Relations Authority,

Respondent

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for

Enforcement of an Order of the Federal

Labor Relations Authority

Robin M. Richardson, Attorney, United States Department

of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and William Kanter,

Deputy Director, United States Department of Justice, were

on brief.

David M. Smith, Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, argued the cause for the respondent. Sarah Whittle

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Spooner, Attorney, Federal Labor Relations Authority, was

on brief. William R. Tobey, Deputy Solicitor, Federal Labor

Relations Authority, entered an appearance.

Before: Williams, Henderson and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) of the Department of Transportation petitions for review of a decision of the Federal

Labor Relations Authority (FLRA, Authority) and the FLRA

cross-applies for enforcement. The challenged decision declared negotiable a proposal by the National Association of

Government Employees, Local 3R-10 (Local) that "Air Traffic Assistants" (Assistants) be eligible for free travel on

commercial airlines under the FAA's "national standardized

familiarization program." The FAA took the position before

the FLRA that the proposal, as revised during the FLRA

proceeding, violated government-wide regulations prohibiting

executive branch employees from accepting gifts. Without

addressing the FAA's contention, the FLRA held the proposal negotiable on the ground that the FAA failed to offer

specific arguments and regulations to the Authority. We

review the FLRA's negotiability decision "in accordance with

the standards established in the Administrative Procedure

Act, 5 U.S.C. s 706," and therefore "we must reverse the

Authority's negotiability decision if it is 'arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

law.' 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A)." NLRB v. FLRA, 2 F.3d 1190,

1197 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (internal case citations omitted). Because we conclude the FAA sufficiently apprised the FLRA of

its position and supporting regulations, we hold that it was

arbitrary and capricious for the Authority to refuse to address the substance of the FAA's objection to the revised

proposal. Accordingly, we grant the FAA's petition for review and remand to the Authority for consideration of the

merits of the parties' negotiability arguments.

On October 23, 1995 the Local, which represents Assistants

employed by the FAA, submitted for negotiation a "Liaison

and Familiarization Travel" proposal that made Assistants

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

eligible to participate in the national standardized familiarization program, previously open only to Air Traffic Controllers.

The proposal purported to "recognize the desirability of familiarization flying as a training program and that it is intended

solely to acquaint bargaining unit personnel with the cockpit

environment and to enable them to observe the operation of

the air traffic system first hand." Joint Appendix (JA) 12.

Under the proposal, each Assistant was entitled to one free

international and eight free domestic round-trip flights per

year, as "on-the-job-training," to be approved by the FAA

"for approved leave days, regular days off and for duty days

in any combination." JA 14-15. The proposal further required the FAA to "make every effort to allow familiarization

flights to be conducted on duty time," JA 14, and provided

that "[a]n employee traveling on such a flight on his/her

regularly assigned duty day [would] receive[ ] the same premium pay he/she would have received had he/she worked

his/her regular shift," JA 15.

The FAA refused to negotiate the proposal, contending it

was "outside the duty to bargain because it interferes with

management's right to assign work." JA 17. The Local

petitioned the FLRA to review the FAA's non-negotiability

allegation and the FAA again raised the management rights

objection. In reply the Local submitted to the Authority a

revised proposal from which it had deleted all reference to

training, pay and travel during duty time (except when duties

are assigned at the trip's outbound duty destination). The

Local characterized the "proposals at issue" as "distinct from

proposals previously ruled on by the Authority," and found to

interfere with management rights, in that (1) they "do not

require the use of official time or expenditure of Agency

funds," (2) "familiarization flights would be provided to [Assistants] on approved leave days and regular days off" and (3)

"[d]uty time would be used only when the Agency assigns

duties at the outbound destination." JA 36-37. Thus, the

Local asserted, the revised proposal would "not interfere with

management's right to assign work," JA 37, but merely

"would provide to Air Traffic Assistants represented by the

Union equitable conditions of employment as other air traffic

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

employees of the Agency," which "include familiarization with

the operation of the aircraft equipment and communications

from the flight crews [sic] perspective" as well as "the benefit

of free air travel," JA 36.

In response to the revised proposal, the FAA filed a

"Supplemental Statement of Position," objecting as follows to

the revised proposal:

Executive Order 12574 as modified by EO 12731 and 5

CFR 2635.01 et. [sic] seq., Standard of Conduct for

Employees of the Executive Branch, a government-wide

regulation prohibits the acceptance of gifts by federal

employees. Deleting all references to the [Liaison and

Familiarization Travel] program as a training programs

[sic], results in allowing the [Assistants] to accept free air

travel for personal use. Free air travel for personal use

is considered a gift prohibited by the Standards of Conduct for Emloyees [sic] of the Executive Branch.

The Union's proposal is contrary to government-wide

regulations within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. section

7117(a)(1) and is therefore non-negotiable.

JA 48A. In a "Supplemental Response" the Local countered

that the revised program "would no more constitute a gift for

[Assistants] than it does for any other employee of the

Agency." JA 50.

In a brief decision dated June 30, 1997 the FLRA ordered

the FAA to negotiate the revised proposal, concluding that

the FAA's "bare assertion that the proposal conflicts with a

Government-wide regulation ... does not establish that the

proposal is outside the duty to bargain." JA 54. Reciting

that the FAA's supplemental response "cites only to the

Executive Order and its implementing regulations, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive

Branch," "does not cite any specific section of either the

Executive Order or the regulations in support of its contention that the Union's proposal conflicts with Government-wide

regulation" and "does not offer any arguments establishing a

basis for its contention," the FLRA asserted the FAA had

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

failed to carry its "burden of creating a record upon which the

Authority can make a negotiability determination." JA 53-

54. To the contrary, we find the argument and supporting

authority in the FAA's Supplemental Statement of Position

sufficiently places the FAA's negotiability objection before

the Authority.

The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act

requires a federal agency to negotiate conditions of employment with the recognized exclusive representative of its employees. 5 U.S.C. ss 7114, 7117; see United States Dep't of

Hous. & Urban Dev. v. FLRA, 964 F.2d 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

The duty to negotiate exists, however, only "to the extent not

inconsistent with any Federal law or any Government-wide

rule or regulation." 5 U.S.C. s 7117(a)(1). In its Supplemental Statement of Position, the FAA stated its argument

clearly, if succinctly: "Free air travel for personal use is

considered a gift prohibited by the Standards of Conduct for

Emloyees [sic] of the Executive Branch" and thus "[t]he

Union's proposal is contrary to government-wide regulations

within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. section 7117(a)(1) and is

therefore non-negotiable." JA 48A. While the FAA miscited

two of the sources for the anti-gift regulations (citing to Exec.

Order No. 12,574 and 5 C.F.R. s 2635.01 instead of to Exec.

Order No. 12,674 1 and 5 C.F.R. s 2635.101 or s 2635.201,

respectively) 2 and failed to cite specific subsections within the

__________

1 Executive Order 12,674, 54 Fed. Reg. 15,159 (1989), as modified

by Executive Order 12,731, 55 Fed. Reg. 42,547 (1990), provides:

An employee shall not, except pursuant to such reasonable

exceptions as are provided by regulation, solicit or accept any

gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity

seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting

activities regulated by the employee's agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or

nonperformance of the employee's duties.

Exec. Order No. 12,731, s 101(d), 55 Fed. Reg. at 42,547.

2 Sections 2635.101-107 constitute "Subpart A" ("General Provisions") of the "Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch." Section 2635.101 provides in part:

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

regulations, its position and authority are easily understood.

The regulations on which the FAA relied are neither obscure

nor difficult to locate. The FLRA apparently had little

trouble identifying not only the specific language prohibiting

solicitation or acceptance of gifts but also various provisions

creating exceptions to the general prohibition. See JA 54 n.2

(portion of order discussing possible applicability of exceptions to anti-gift rule).3 We are at a loss therefore to

understand why the Authority declined to address the argument squarely put before it. It is true that an agency has a

duty to "direct the Authority's attention, with as much specificity as possible, to the statutes and regulations relevant to

an agency's duty to bargain" and "should not expect the

Authority, sua sponte, to locate, analyze and apply all arguably pertinent regulations from the myriad of federal regulations governing the numerous federal agencies within the

Authority's jurisdiction." National Fed'n of Fed. Employees,

Local 1167 v. FLRA, 681 F.2d 886, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see

__________

An employee shall not, except as permitted by subpart B of

this part, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary

value from any person or entity seeking official action from,

doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by the

employee's agency, or whose interests may be substantially

affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties.

Sections 2635.201-205 constitute Subpart B ("Gifts from Outside

Sources"). Section 2635.202 provides:

General prohibitions. Except as provided in this subpart, an

employee shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit or accept a gift:

(1) From a prohibited source; or

(2) Given because of the employee's official position.

5 U.S.C. s 2635.202(a). Section 203 defines "prohibited source" to

include "any person who ... Conducts activities regulated by the

employee's agency." 5 C.F.R. s 203(d)(3).

3 We do not endorse the suggestion, implicit in footnote 2 of the

FLRA decision, that an agency bears the burden not only of making

its own case but also of anticipatorily rebutting all possible counterarguments.

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

also 5 C.F.R. s 2424.6(a)(2).4 But when the agency, as here,

has borne its burden and squarely presented an argument to

the FLRA, the Authority cannot shirk its own duty to decide

the issue before it.5 Cf. Department of Treasury v. FLRA,

762 F.2d 1119, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (concluding that conflictwith-government-wide-regulation issue "was presented to the

Authority with sufficient clarity to make it proper for consideration on review," in spite of agency's failure to cite conflicting regulation where regulation was "well known" and not

"obscure, technical provision of civil service law"). Moreover,

if the FLRA found the FAA's submission too oblique for

resolution, it should at least have requested additional briefing from the FAA, cf. 5 C.F.R. s 2424.8, or held a hearing,

see 5 C.F.R. s 2424.9, to probe the matter further rather than

simply refuse to address the argument.

For the preceding reasons, we grant the FAA's petition for

review, deny the FLRA's application for enforcement and

remand to the FLRA to address the negotiability of the

revised proposal.

So ordered.

__________

4 Section 2424.6 requires that, after a petition for review of an

agency allegation of non-negotiability has been filed with the

FLRA, the agency file a statement either (1) "[w]ithdrawing the

allegation that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to

the matter proposed to be negotiated" or (2) "[s]etting forth in full

its position on any matters relevant to the petition which it wishes

the Authority to consider in reaching its decision, including a full

and detailed statement of its reasons supporting the allegation" and

"cit[ing] the section of any law, rule or regulation relied upon as a

basis for the allegation." 5 C.F.R. s 2424.6(a)(2).

5 Even when the agency falters," the Authority plainly is not

foreclosed from making an independent inquiry into the law relevant to each agency's exercise of management rights." National

Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 681 F.2d at 891. The FLRA seems to

have undertaken just such an inquiry here with regard to possible

exceptions to the anti-gift rule. See JA 54 n.2.

USCA Case #97-1522 Document #362579 Filed: 06/26/1998 Page 7 of 7