1979 - 1999 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001 

May 26, 1999 

20th Anniversary 

This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the Federal Service Labor-Management 

Relations Statute and the creation of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. To commemorate 

this occasion, the FLRA is hostingtraining conferences for participants in the Feder,;il labor 

relations program, and publishing this briefreview of the program's origins and this Agency's 

journey over the past two decades. 

The conferences and this pub Ii cation are dedicated to increasing understanding of the past 

and deepening knowledge of the Statute. Both are important building blocks for a vibrant 

collective bargaining program in the future. The goal is to promote stable, constructive labor 

relations that contribute to a more effective government, thereby achieving Congress' purpose 

when it recognized that labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in 

the public interest. 

!~ ,,_.... Joseph Swerdzewski 

Member General Counsel 

Member Chair 

~~n .. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE STATUTE ............................................................................ 3 

ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE ...................................................................................... 7 

DECISIONS INTERPRETING AND APPL YING THE STATUTE .................................... 17 

THE FLRA AND ITS EMPLOYEES ................................................................................... 26 

ENTERING THE 21 sT CENTURY ....................................................................................... 32 

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 35 

AUTHORITY CHAIRS AND MEMBERS 

GENERAL COUNSELS 

FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL CHAIRS AND MEMBERS 

FOREIGN SERVICE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND MEMBERS 

FOREIGN SERVICE IMPASSE DISPUTES PANEL CHAIRS AND MEMBERS 
INTRODUCTION 

"The right of Federal employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate 

through labor organizations in decisions which affect them, with full regard for 

the public interest and the effective conduct of public business, should be 

specifically recognized in statute. " Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Sec.3(10) 

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) was born on January 1, 1979. Its 

structure, mission and authority were imposed 10 days later by Title VII of the Civil Service 

Reform Act of 1978, when Congress enacted the first comprehensive reform of the Federal 

civil service system in the 20th Century. 

Created to preside over the first statutory labor-management relations program covering 

Federal employees, the FLRA was in part an amalgam of entities established by Presidential 

Executive Order in 1969. But it was also a brand new agency, with expanded powers and 

offices that were designed to enable it to carry out its mission of encouraging collective bargaining 

while safeguarding the "efficient accomplishment" of government operations. 

To accomplish these mandates, Congres; structured the FLRA as three distinct 

components: the Authority, the three-member, bipartisan administrative tribunal that, among 

other enumerated powers, would resolve representation claims, negotiability issues, unfair labor 

practice complaints and exceptions to arbitration awards; the Office of the General Counsel, 

which would investigate and prosecute unfair labor practice charges; and the seven-member 

Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel), which would provide assistance in resolving 

bargaining impasses. The Authority Members, the General Counsel and the Panel Members 

are appointed by the President for 5-year terms. All but the Panel Members are subject to 

Senate confirmation. The President designates one of the Authority Members to serve as Chair 

of the Authority and as the FLRA' s Chief Executive and Administrative Officer. 

Twenty years later and at the brink of a new century, this publication briefly describes 

the FLRA's history and where the agency is headed. No vital organization'can remain unchanged 

after 20 years, and the FLRA is no exception. Legal decisions and regulations have defined and 

FLRA - 20 Years 1 
clarified provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute); 

agency regulations - as originally adopted and subsequently revised-have enabled the FLRA 

to carry out its statutory responsibilities; the agency's workforce has shrunk and been restructured; 

alternative methods for resolving disputes and collaborative systems to avoid escalating disputes 

have, to an increasing extent, become central to good labor-management relations. 

As the FLRA refines its programs, it remains determined to fulfill its statutory role of 

providing the necessary leadership to help Federal managers, labor organizations and employees 

work together productively and resolve problems constructively. Entering its 21st year, the 

FLRA is pursuing this goal in many ways as described throughout this publication. It is 

continually expanding its outreach to labor and management in order to communicate its actions 

and understand the changing nature of labor-management relations in the Federal sector. New 

regulations covering all three statutory components have created procedures that make the 

FLRA's programs more accessible and collaborative resolution of disputes more likely. These 

programs have been recognized for their creativity and effectiveness, and the Authority's 

decisions are gaining increasing deference from the courts. During its first 20 years this small, 

but complex, independent agency has met many challenges; it recognizes that much remains to 

be accomplished. 

The chapters that follow briefly review how and why the FLRA was created, and issues 

that it has faced in administering the Statute, including trends in labor law and labor relations 

over the past 20 years. You will read about how the agency's decisions and judicial review 

have shaped the meaning and application of the Statute's provisions. Finally, you will learn 

about the FLRA's organizational structure and its ~mployees, who have enabled the FLRA to 

play its leadership role in the Federal labor-management relations community. 

2 FLRA - 20 Years 
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE STATUTE 

"A well balanced labor relations program will increase the efficiency of the 

Government by providing for meaningful participation of employees in the 

conduct of business in general and the conditions of their employment. " 

Rep. William Clay (123 Cong. Rec. E333, January 26, 1977) 

Federal employees first obtained the right to engage in collective bargaining through 

labor organizations of their choice in 1962, when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 

10988, which also authorized the use of limited advisory arbitration of grievances. In 1969, 

President Nixon expanded those rights through Executive Order 11491, which established an 

institutional framework to govern labor-management relations in the Federal Government, 

set forth specific unfair labor practices, and authorized the use of binding arbitration of 

certain disputes. Both Orders contained provisions reserving certain rights to agency 

management. 

Executive Order 11491 also established two new entities. One, the Federal Labor 

Relations Council (Council), would oversee the entire program; make definitive interpretations 

and rulings on provisions of the Order; decide .hiajor policy issues; bear appeals, at its 

discretion, from decisions made by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations on unfair labor practice charges and representation claims; resolve appeals from 

negotiability decisions made by agency heads; and decide exceptions"to arbitration awards. 

The other, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, was given discretionary authority to assist 

parties in resolving bargaining impasses when voluntary arrangements failed. 

Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act 

By 1977, President Carter had determined that comprehensive reform of the civil 

service system - the first since the Pendleton Act of 1883 - was necessary. The Congress 

agreed and, after extensive hearings, passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Title VII 

of that Act, which specifically addressed labor-management relations and established the 

authority of the FLRA, engendered particularly heated debate. Eventually, that title of the 

FLRA - 20 Y cars 3 
bill before the House of Representatives was replaced by a substitute amendment proposed by 

Rep. Morris K. Udall. Members of Congress previously opposed to the initial legislation 

that contained a broad management rights provision supported the amendment, based on an 

understanding that the provision would be "narrowly construed" and would, "wherever 

possible, encourage both parties to work out their differences in negotiations." (Rep. Ford, 

124 Cong. Rec. H9648). The House passed the "Udall Substitute,'' the Senate agreed to the 

conference report embodying that amendment, and President Carter signed Title VII, the 

Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, into law as part of the Civil Service 

Reform Act on October 13, 1978, effective January 11, 1979. 

The actual establishment of the FLRA was effected by the Reorganization Plan No. 2 

of 1978, which took effect on January l, 1979, 10 days before the Statute became law. As 

one commentator described, the legislative negotiations that resulted in Title VII and established 

the FLRA "so muddied the content and intent of the new agency that no one knew what it was 

supposed to do or how it was supposed to do it." (Patricia W. Ingraham and David H. 

Rosenbloom, eds., The Promise and Paradox of Civil Service Reform, University of Pittsburgh 

Press (1992) at 95; quoting Carolyn Ban, "Implementing Civil Service Reform" (1984) at 

219.) It was clear, however, that the functions of the Federal Labor Relations Council and 

the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations were consolidated in an 

independent agency because, as President Carter explained, the arrangement under the Executive 

Order was "defective because the Council members are part-time, they come exclusively 

from the ranks of management and their jurisdiction is fragmented." (Message from President 

Jimmy Carter Transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, May 23, 1978.) 

While the statutory program was similar in many respects to the system that it replaced, 

there were programmatic and structural differences that radically chapged Federal sector 

labor-management relations. Among the more significant changes affecting the structure and 

operation of the new agency were: 

4 

The independent and bipartisan Authority was established to replace the Council, 

whose members had been the heads of three executive agencies, and given 

broad powers to remedy unfair labor practices and formal rulemaking authority; 

The independent Office of the General Counsel was established to investigate 

and prosecute unfair labor practice charges; and 

FLRA - 20 Years 
•:• The Statute made the Authority's final orders - which are issued in unfair 

labor practice and negotiability decisions - subject to judicial review. 

In addition, the Statute made significant substantive changes that would alter the 

dynamics of labor-management relations, including: 

•!• Requiring that bargaining agreements contain grievance procedures terminating 

in binding arbitration and broadening the permissible scope of negotiated 

grievance procedures; 

•:• Requiring that agencies grant official time to exclusive representatives for 

negotiating collective bargaining agreements; and 

•!• Changing the nature and scope of reserved management rights and the exceptions 

to those rights. 

FLRA Jurisdiction and Responsibilities 

The jurisdiction defined for the newly-created FLRA extended throughout the world 

to wherever Federal agencies covered by the Statute are located. Subsequent legislation 

further expanded the list of entities within FLRA's jurisdiction. For example, the Panama 

Canal Act of 1979 extended FLRA's jurisdiction to cover employees, including foreign 

nationals, of the Panama Canal Commission and p.S. agencies in the Panama Canal Zone, 

although this jurisdiction was terminated as of July 1, 1998. More recently, the Presidential 

and Executive Office Accountability Act extended coverage of the Statute to additional 

categories of employees of the Executive Office of the President. 

Coverage also has been modified over the years by Presidential Orders issued pursuant 

to § 7103(b) based on national security determinations. In November 1979, President Carter 

excluded a number of agency subdivisions, principally in the Department of Defense and 

Department of the Treasury. Subsequently, President Reagan suspended the program with 

respect to certain overseas activities, and exempted specific divisions of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration and the United States Marshall's Service from the Statute's coverage. 

Through subsequent legislation, Congress expanded the responsibilities of components 

of the FLRA. For example, the Foreign Service Act of 1980 established a labor-management 

relations program for the members of the U.S. Foreign Service. The Chair of the FLRA also 

FLRA - 20 Years 5 
heads the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board and appoints its members and the members 

of the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel; the FLRA General Counsel serves as General 

Counsel to the Board; and the Chair of the Federal Service Impasses Panel serves as a 

member of the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel. In 1982, the Federal Service Impasses 

Panel gained authority to rule on negotiation impasses regarding alternative work schedules. 

And, in 1994, Congress assigned the Authority specific responsibilities concerning the 

certification of bargaining units resulting from reorganizations within the Department of 

Agriculture. 

In addition to statutory changes related to the FLRA's program responS"ibilities, 

legislation subsequent to 1978 has affected the administrative operations of the agency. For 

example, in 1984 Congress designated the Chair of the FLRA as the agency's Chief Executive 

and Administrative Officer, which led to more centralized management and operations. 

6 FLRA - 20 Y cars 
ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE 

"The Federal Labor Relations Authority exercises leadership under the Federal 

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to promote stable, constructive 

labor relations that contribute to a more effective Government. " FLRA Mission 

Statement (adopted 199 5) 

The FLRA performs many distinct functions in administering the Statute. These 

functions are, for the most part, carried out by the principal independent components that 

together form the FLRA: the Authority, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Federal 

Service Impasses Panel. The functions include: the Authority's adjudication of disputes 

concerning negotiability of collective bargaining proposals, unfair labor practice allegations 

and representation petitions, and exceptions to grievance arbitration awards; the Office of the 

General Counsel's investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice complaints and its 

delegated authority to process representation petitions; the Federal Service Impasses Panel's 

resolution of bargaining impasses arising from negotiations over conditions of employment; 

and the delivery of collaborative and alternative dispute resolution services by all components. 

As the FLRA enters its 21st year of operations, the Jocus in carrying out these functions is on 

promoting the practice of constructive labor relatibns. ' 

The Statute defines the univ,erse of organizations that most direc;.tly rely on the FLRA: 

the Federal agencies that employ workers eligible to be represented by unions and the unions 

that have been recognized as the exclusive representatives of these employees. The individuals 

who represent these organizations, and Federal employees accorded rights by the Statute, 

comprise the individual "customers" of the FLRA. 

Agency employers subject to the Statute include the Executive Branch cabinet-level 

agencies, the Executive Office of the President, independent agencies such as the National 

Labor Relations Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and two Legislative 

Branch agencies, the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office. Nearly 1.1 

million non-postal Federal employees world-wide are exclusively repres'ented in approximately 

2,200 bargaining units. More than 90 unions serve as the exclusive representatives of these 

FLRA - 20 Years 7 
units; the unions that represent the largest number of employees are the American Federation 

of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Federation 

of Federal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees. During the 

past 20 years, although the size of the Federal workforce has diminished, the percentage of 

Federal employees who are unionized has remained essentially stable currently at 59 

percent. 

Cases FHed 

When operations commenced in January 1979, each of the FLRA components was 

immediately faced with an inventory of cases that had been filed before the effective date of 

the Statute. The Authority began its first day of work with an inventory of 119 cases that 

were carried over from the Executive Order program; the regional offices faced 531 pending 

unfair labor practice charges and 247 representation petitions that had been transferred from 

the Department of Labor; and 27 cases were pending before the Panel. Not surprisingly, new 

case filings immediately began pouring in. By the end of the first fiscal year only 9 months 

after the creation of the Agency more than 3,000 new cases had been filed. 

FLRA's first Presidentially-appointed leadership the Chair and two Members of 

the Authority, and the General Counsel -- were confirmed in July 1979. The regulations to 

govern the ne\v Statutory proceedings - the processing of representation petitions, unfair 

labor practice charges and complaints, negotiability appeals, exceptions to arbitration awards 

and the resolution of negotiation impasses - were promulgated in January 1980. As~ discussed 

below, these regulations remained substantially unchanged for 15 years. 

While tackling its start-up .challenges, the FLRA also immediately began addressing 

its program responsibilities. Within months, the Authority issued its first policy statement, 

concerning the revocation of written dues assignment. By mid-summer, the Office of the 

General Counsel began issuing unfair labor practice complaints for hearing before the 

Authority's newly created Office of Administrative Law Judges (AIJs). and the Authority 

was examining complex issues. such as the negotiability of performance standards. By the 

end of fiscal year 1980~ the Federal courts of appeals had been asked to review 18 Authority 

decisions. 

8 FLRA - 20 Years 
Except for a surge in cases filed 

in 1981, and a few years when filings 

remained level, overall case filings rose 

fairly steadily until 1992. Since the vast 

majority of these cases are unfair labor 

practice charges filed with regional 

offices, this trend largely reflected a 

steady increase in unfair labor practice 

charges. Beginning in 1992, however, 

the number of cases began to decline: 

from 1992 through 1998, unfair labor 

practice charges filed with the regional 

CASES FILED WITH TIIE 

Filings in J 998 were 34% less than the peak filing level in 1992. 

79 83 88 93 

Fiscal Year 

offices declined by 35 percent, with approximately 5700 charges filed in 1998. Throughout 

the past 20 years, only 3 to 5 percent of unfair labor practice charges have ended up as 

appeals to the Authority; the remainder are dismissed, withdrawn or settled prior to hearing, 

or are resolved by the ALJs without exceptions to the Authority. Thus, the vast majority of 

unfair labor practice charges are closed without a final precedential Authority decision. 

The number of representation petitions filed with the regional offices has ranged from 

a high of 704 in 1979 to a low of 292 in 1987. Since 1995, the number has remained 

relatively steady at an average of 460 per year. 

All disputed representation petitions were submitted to the Authority until 1?83, when 

the Authority delegated decision-making authority in this area to the Regional Directors, who 

by that time had a considerable body of precedent to follow. After this, there was a significant 

decline in the number and percentage of disputed representation cases filed with the Authority, 

and the vast majority (over 95%) are now fully resolved at the regional office level. In 1979, 

representation cases comprised nearly one-third of the cases filed with the Authority. Since 

1984, following the delegation to the Regional Directors, representation cases have comprised 

no more than 8 percent of Authority case filings. 

With respect to other types of cases filed with the Authority, the mix also has changed 

over time. For example, arbitration cases constituted 17 percent of the cases filed during the 

first fiscal year. By 1990, arbitration cases had increased to 42 percent of the Authority's 

case filings and, in 1998, rose to 47 percent. Negotiability case filings have ranged from a 

high of 40 percent in 1992 to a low of 13 percent in 1994. This' category of cases has 

remained steady at approximately 25 percent of the Authority's case filings since 1995. 

FLRA - 20 Years 9 
Impasse disputes filed with the Panel reached a peak of 293 in 1991, but declined 

steadily through 1997 to a low of 148. Filings rose again in 1998 to 175. Since 1993, when 

changes in case law limited the circumstances requiring impact-and-implementation bargaining, 

multi-issue end-of-term impasses have constituted an ever-increasing percentage of the Panel's 

caseload. 

Beginning in the first years of its existence, the FLRA in general, and the Authority in 

particular, developed a reputation for moving too slowly in resolving disputes. Concerns 

about the timeliness of decisions continue to the present, as indicated in a customer survey 

conducted in 1997. Recent actions to expedite decision-making have included modifications 

of internal work processes, regulatory reform initiatives and strategic issuance goals. Changing 

the perception and reality of slow decision··making remains a challenge for the future. 

Early Years: Statutory Enforcement Through Litigation -

the NLRB Model 

During the first years of the FLRA's operation, its administration of the Statute was 

patterned after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This followed the statutory 

framework that provides for a quasi-judicial body (the Authority) and a public prosecutor 

with investigatory and prosecutorial authority (the General Counsel), which is similar to the 

National Labor Relations Act governing labor..:management relations in the private sector. 

Under this model, the General Counsel's early focus was on the exercise of statutory 

prosecutorial functions and the use of litigation to elucidate the Statute and develop a body of 

case law regarding Federal sector labor-management relations. Consistent with this focus, 

the regulations governing unfair labor practice and representation case processing were, in 

the main, modeled after the NLRB's regulations. As an example, like the NLRB's regulations, 

the FLRA's original unfair labor practice regulations did not require exchange of information 

between the litigants. This was changed in 1997, when the FLRA's unfair labor practice 

regulations were revised to require prehearing conferences and pretrial exchange of information. 

Encouraging Interest-Based Settlement of Disputes 

Steps were taken from the outset to encourage voluntary resolution of disputes at the 

earliest possible time. Section 2423.10 of the Interim Rules and Regulations published in 

1979 set forth the poli9y of the Authority and the General Counsel favoring the settlement of 

10 FLRA - 20 Years 
issues at any phase of an unfair labor practice proceeding. Indeed, even in the period during 

which the Office of the General Counsel placed great emphasis on litigation to elucidate the 

meaning of the new Statute, priority was placed on the voluntary resolution of individual 

cases. 

Starting in the late 1980' s, the FLRA began modifying existing programs and developing 

new initiatives aimed at fostering improved labor relations by assisting parties to resolve their 

own difficulties through interest-based approaches. The Office of the General Counsel, 

which has always encouraged settlement of unfair labor practice charges, devoloped specialized 

training and workshops for labor and management in methods of interest-based bargaining, 

collaborative conflict resolution and relationship building. In 1991, the Authority established 

the Labor-Management Cooperation Program, devoted to encouraging parties to collaboratively 

resolve their disputes. 

Executive Branch initiatives in 1993-94 led to further expansion of these activities. In 

particular, the National Performance Review (NPR), established in 1993 by President Clinton 

and led by Vice President Gore, required Federal agencies to undertake reinvention initiatives 

designed to improve government services with the goal of creating a government that works 

better and costs Jess. NPR envisioned moving away from the traditional legalistic and 

adversarial approach to labor relations. The issuance of President Clinton's Executive Order 

12871 in October 1993 spurred the formation of labor-management partnerships, and directed 

Federal agencies to broaden their bargaining with unions to include subjects set forth in 

§ 7106(b)(l) of the Statute. 

In 1994, the Office of the General Counsel began systematical1y training its entire 

staff in interest-based bargaining. In 1994 through 1995, the Cornel! University School of 

Industrial and Labor Relations, in partnership with the Office of the General Counsel, provided 

interest-based bargaining training jointly to FLRA employees and labor and management 

representatives throughout the country. The two-day training sessions were conducted in 

every FLRA regional city to build skills in problem solving by exposing the participants to 

the theory behind interest-based dispute resolution and demonstrating this technique through 

simulated exercises. Also, the General Counsel empowered the Regional Directors to develop 

new and innovative approaches to remedies that address and resolve specific underlying 

disputes, and Dispute Resolution Specialist positions were created in each of the regional 

offices. 

FLRA - 20 Years 11 
In 1995, a pilot settlement judge program was launched in the Authority's Office of 

Administrative Law Judges. This program was so successful that it has been made permanent, 

as part of the revised unfair labor practice regulations which encourage collaborative problem 

solving in all phases of the processing of unfair labor practice cases. 

During this time period, the Panel, which always emphasized voluntary settlement of 

negotiation impasses, designed new methods to help parties find their own "real world" 

solutions to problems. Using its broad statutory authority to take whatever action it finds 

appropriate to resolve impasses, the Panel shifted its emphasis from the formal fact-finding 

and plenary decision-making of its early years to less formal and more expeditious forms of 

assistance. For example, in 1996, the Panel introduced expedited arbitration procedures, 

which guarantee a written decision within two work days after a hearing. 

Initiatives also were undertaken during the 1990s to increase the parties' understanding 

of the Statute which is the backdrop against which labor relations are conducted. These 

initiatives included programs carried out by all components to train union and management 

representatives on rights and obligations under the Statute. In addition, a series of seminars 

on arbitration law was conducted for parties and arbitrators. As part of the same effort to 

increase parties' understanding of how their disputes would be resolved under the Statute, the 

General Counsel published and widely disseminated policies to guide decisions by the Regional 

Directors on issuing and litigating unfair labor practice complaints, and manuals on resolving 

representation petitions. In addition, the Office of the General Counsel has conducted numerous 

town meetings throughout the country to provide information to help labor representatives 

and managers understand the Statute. / ·· 

Mainstreaming Collaborative Dispute Resolution 

In 1996, the three FLRA components joined together to establish the Collaboration 

and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Program, the first unified Agency-wide program 

dedicated to assisting parties with resolving disputes on their own terms, at the earliest possible 

time, through the use of interest-based problem solving. The small CADR office is charged 

with expanding this assistance and providing support and guidance for the interest-based 

dispute resolution activities of each FLRA component. The services offered to labor and 

management by the unified program include: training (on statutory issues, interest-based 

bargaining, partnership, alternative dispute resolution and relationship building); and dispute 

resolution assistance in pending unfair labor practice, representation and bargaining impasse 

12 FLRA 20 Years 
cases. Most recently, through the CADR program, the Authority has also begun to help 

parties resolve their negotiability disputes. 

These efforts are guided by the recognition that interest-based problem solving is not 

merely an "alternative" to resolving disputes through traditional arbitration or litigation it 

is the dispute resolution method best suited to achieving constructive labor relations. In 

addition to direct delivery of training and dispute resolution assistance, the FLRA's activities 

to "mainstream" collaborative dispute resolution have led to incorporating principles of interestbased problem solving in procedures governing cases that are filed with the FLRA, as described 

below. 

In April 1999, the FLRA's Mainstreaming Collaborative Dispute Resolution program 

was chosen as a semifinalist - one of 98 from a pool of 1,609 applicants - in the Innovations 

in American Government Awards Program of the Ford Foundation administered by Harvard 

University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in partnership with the Council for 

Excellence in Government. This awards program recognizes Federal, state and local initiatives 

that are original and effective. 

Regulations Revised to Incorporate Principles of CADR 

Except for minor, technical modifications, the regulations initially promulgated in 

January 1980 remained largely unchanged for 15 years, at which time the FLRA began a 

systematic effort to review how cases are handled a;nd to reinvent its procedures. This initiative 

has resulted in major regulatory revisions adopted in: 

•!• December 1995 for representation petitions; 

.. : .. August 1996 for negotiability impasses; 

•:~ July 1997 for litigation of unfair labor practice complaints; 

•!• November 1998 for processing of unfair labor practice charges; and 

December 1998 for negotiability appeals. 

The revisions to these regulations were accomplished through a process that broadly 

involved labor and management in identifying ways to improve the regulations, and in shaping 

FLRA - 20 Years 13 
the improvements. The revisions were aimed at maximizing the quality of decisions, minimizing 

the time it takes to issue them, and providing meaningful assistance to parties struggling to 

create the sound labor-management relations system that Congress contemplated when enacting 

the Statute in 1978. 

14 

Several objectives guided these regulatory changes: 

•:•First, to make FLRA's regulations "user-friendly" - with concise, plain English as 

a goal-in order to reduce delays in resolving disputes due to difficulties in understanding 

and complying with procedural requirements. For example, under the 'revised 

representation regulations, parties are no longer required, as they were previously, to 

determine which of seven different petitions they should file. Instead, parties now file a 

single petition, in which they simply are required to describe the problems they are 

trying to resolve. 

•!•Second, the regulations were revised with the objective to ease procedural burdens on 

parties - to reduce the costs of litigation and expedite resolution of claims. For example, 

the revised negotiability regulations will, in most cases, result in resolution in one 

proceeding of issues that previously would have required litigation in several forums. 

As another example, many documents now may be filed with FLRA components by 

facsimile transmission. 

•!•A third objective in revising the regulation,s was to narrow and sharpen the \egal and 

factual issues in dispute. With this objective in mind, the regulations governing unfair 

labor practice cases now require the litigants to exchange information about each side's 

claims and evidence soon after the complaint is issued, and participate in a prehearing 

conference with the Judge. In negotiability cases, parties are required to participate in a 

conference shortly after the petition is filed, to clarify the issues to be resolved, including 

the meaning of the proposal or provision in dispute. In addition to clarifying the issues 

on which they disagree, these requirements for direct communication between the parties 

create opportunities for them to determine whether further litigation is needed, or whether 

their interests could be better served by agreeing on their own solution to the dispute. 

Where the litigation proceeds, the clarification of issues expedites the adjudication, and 

enables more responsive decisions. 

•!• Fourth, the revised regulations are designed to encourage a~d help parties to find 

their own solutions to disputes, where possible, rather than rely on the FLRA to impose 

FLRA - 20 Years 
a decision following costly and time-consuming litigation. The changes that foster 

direct communication between the parties, described above, serve this objective because 

understanding what is in dispute is a central step in exploring whether it can be resolved 

with an interest-based solution. This objective is more directly advanced by other 

revisions. For example, the ULP investigatory regulations, in furtherance of the CADR 

program, provide a full range of ADR services to assist the parties in resolving their 

disputes. The revised ULP litigation regulations make permanent the highly successful 

settlement judge program. And the revised negotiability regulations expressly incorporate 

opportunities for CADR assistance in negotiability cases. 

As just one example of the effect of the reinvented approaches to the FLRA's work: in 

1997, under the revised representation regulations, the Office of the General Counsel assisted 

an Executive Branch Department and its unions in reorganizing bargaining units after a 

massive internal reorganization of the Department. The entire process took only four months 

and saved both the Department and the FLRA the enormous resources that would have gone 

into determining appropriate units and deciding related bargaining issues through representation 

and unfair labor practice proceedings. 

In 1999, the effectiveness of the FLRA's regulatory reform initiatives was recognized 

with a Hammer Award to the FLRA team that reinvented the process for litigating unfair labor 

practice claims. One measure of the success of this initiative is that cases are settling earlier in 

the process and, thus, at a savings for all involved. For example, in the year before the settlement 

judge program was introduced, 21 percent of unfaiillabor practice complaints that w@re settled . 

prior to the Judge's decision did so at the eleventh hour·- at the hearing location immediately 

before the hearing began after many of the expenses in preparing for and appearing at trial 

had already been incurred. In fiscaf year 1998, the percentage of such last-minute "courthouse 

steps" settlements had declined sharply, to only 3 percent of cases settled. 

Comnnunication with Customers 

Throughout its 20 years, the FLRA has made significant efforts to communicate 

with union and management participants in the Federal labor relations community, in addition 

to publishing decisions and annual reports as required by the Statute. In the early years, for 

example, the Office of the General Counsel issued periodic reports describing its major 

activities. In 1991, the Authority initiated a similar publication outlining recent decisions. 

FLRA - 20 Years 15 
In 1996, the separate component publications were integrated into The FLRA Bulletin. At 

first quarterly, budget reductions led the FLRA to now publish this newsletter three times a year. It 

contains a comprehensive range of news about the entire agency, including Authority decisions, 

Panel decisions and settlements, the General Counsel's advice and settlement activity, and CADR 

activities. This expands both the amount of information and the audience to whom the FLRA regularly 

reports on its activities. 

Additional initiatives have also increased the FLRA's communication with the labor 

relations community. As mentioned earlier, the General Counsel's guidance to the Regional 

Directors, and manuals explaining representation procedures and unfair labor practice lifigation, 

are widely disseminated to provide parties additional information about how the Statute is 

interpreted and applied. The Panel issues brochures and pamphlets related to Panel programs 

and operations. The General Counsel and the Panel regularly hold "town meetings" throughout 

the country. The Authority has made use of focus groups and Federal Register notices to 

communicate with the public and to gather views on matters of general concern, such as the 

recent regulatory revisions. In addition, the agency has conducted surveys to solicit views of 

customers on program activities throughout the FLRA. 

In 1997, the FLRA established its own web site, containing decisions, press releases 

and other pertinent information (www.flra.gov). Web site use has increased almost ten-fold 

in two years, with nearly 300 users now accessing the site each day. Initiatives are underway 

to expand this site to provide the ability to search FLRA case decisions. 

16 FLRA - 20 Years 
DECISIONS INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE STATUTE 

" ... the FLRA was intended to develop specialized expertise in its field of labor 

relations and to use that expertise to give content to the principles and goals set 

forth in the Act." Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA) 464 U.S. 

89, 97 (1983) 

Among the greatest challenges facing the FLRA from the outset has been interpreting 

and applying the terms of the Statute. In the course of the last 20 years, the Authority has issued 

nearly 7000 published decisions doing just this. Additional FLRA binding decisions have been 

issued in over 6000 representation cases by Regional Directors and nearly 700 unfair labor 

practice cases by Administrative Law Judges. Also, tens of tho.usands of non-precedential 

awards have been issued by arbitrators resolving grievances under negotiated grievance 

procedures. As the parties did not ask the Authority to review these Regional Director, 

Administrative Law Judge and arbitrator decisions, they do not serve as precedent for .other 

cases; they are, nevertheless, binding applications of the Statute. Finally, approximately 900 

decisions resolving negotiation impasses have been issued by the Panel. 

Faced with a new Statute, virtually every ca~e in the early years involved issues of first 

impression. For example, in 1979, the Authority ruled in Interpretation and Guidance (1979), 

that where either party to a grievaqce procedure negotiated prior to th~ effective date of the 

Statute objected to its continuation, renegotiation under§ 7121 was necessary. Twenty years 

later, issues of first impression are still being presented. In 1997, the Authority set forth for the 

first time the framework for determining under § 7111 of the Statute whether a labor organization 

is subject to corrupt influences. Department of Military and Na val Affairs, New York National 

Guard ( 1997). In addition, the Authority continues to struggle with some issues that were 

raised and addressed in early decisions --such as what standards should be used in determining 

whether proposals are negotiable procedures under§ 7106(b)(2); what matters are permissive 

subjects of bargaining under § 7106(b )(1); and the scope of the Weingarten right under 

§ 7114(a)(2)(B). 

FLRA - 20 Years 17 
Statutory Sections Considered "Clear Their Face" 

Some sections of the Statute have been easily understood and applied. For example, 

courts have consistently held that, under § 7118, the Authority has "a broad congressional 

delegation of discretion ... to fashion appropriate remedies for an unfair labor practice." NTEU 

v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1990). Consistent with this remedial power, the Authority has fashioned 

several remedies that, over the years, have become "traditional" in scope and application. For 

example, in Federal Correctional Institution (1982) the Authority concluded that it could issue 

status quo ante remedies in refusal to bargain cases even if the underlying decision that triggered 

bargaining was not itself negotiable. The Authority more recently set forth the mandard by 

which it would evaluate requests for "non-traditional" remedies. See Warren Air Force 

Base (1996). 

Sources Guiding How the Statute is Construed 

There are many sections of the Statute, however, that have not been as easily construed 

and applied. Indeed, one section of the Statute that is frequently litigated - § 7106(b ), which 

sets forth exceptions to management's rights was characterized by then-Judge Scalia as 

containing "confusing duplicity." AFGE, Local 2782 v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1983). Given the 

negotiating process that led to enactment of the Statute, consulting the legislative history does 

not often clarify what Congress intended. Nevertheless, there are at least three independent 

sources of precedent that the Authority uses as guides for construing and applying these 

provisions. 

18 

•!• First, under § 7135(b) of the Statute decisions by predecessor entities to the Authority, 

such as the Federal Labor Relations Council (Council), continue unless and until they 

are superseded by Authority decisions. An example of the Authority's consideration 

and rejection of Council precedent is Department of the Air Force, Air Force Systems 

Command (1984) (Authority stated that Council decision concerning remedial authority 

would no longer be followed). An example of a decision to continue Council precedent 

is Sacramento Army Depot ( 1994) (Authority continued Council precedent concerning 

use of "dual purpose" documents to establish employee support for union decertification). 

•:• Second, decisions by Federal courts reviewing private-sector arbitration awards 

provide the grounds to be applied by the Authority in reviewing awards under 

§ 7122(a)(2). Consistent with this section, the Authority has, from the beginning, 

resolved exceptions to arbitration awards that allege so-called "private sector grounds" 

FLRA - 20 Years 
by applying private-sector law. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 2327 (1981) (on basis of privatesector precedent Authority rejected claim that arbitrator was required to specifically 

discuss disputed contractual provisions). 

¢!<> Third, precedent of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often is considered 

by the Authority in construing provisions of the Statute that are analogous to provisions 

of the National Labor Relations Act. For example,§ 7114(a)(2)(B) the Weingarten 

right to union representation during certain investigatory examinations -was intended 

by Congress to provide rights to Federal employees consistent with those provided in 

the private sector by the NLRB. Accordingly, the Authority often turns t1J NLRB 

precedent concerning the Weingarten right in the private sector in construing the right 

under the Statute. See, e.g., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Colorado (1998) (Authority 

stated that, as in the private sector, an employee's right to designate a particular 

representative is not unlimited). In other cases, however, the Authority has noted 

Congress' recognition that the Weingarten right might evolve differently in the private 

and Federal sectors. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Safford (1990) (Authority discussed 

different approaches in Federal and private sectors to devising remedies for violations 

of the Weingarten right). 

Laws~ Rules and Regulations Outside the Statute Critical to Its 

Application 

Resolving unfair labor practice complaints, negotiability appeals and atbitration 

exceptions often requires the Authority to interpret and apply laws, rules and regulations other 

than the Statute itself. Of course, the United States Constitution always takes precedence over 

any law enacted by Congress, including the Statute. InDepartment oftht:,Army v. FLRA (D.C. 

Cir. 1995), for example, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was relied on by the reviewing 

Federal court of appeals, which held that the Statute does not constitute a waiver of sovereign 

immunity permitting the Authority to assess money damages other than back pay. In addition, 

the Statute expressly gives other laws, rules and regulations precedence over collective bargaining 

rights under the Statute in certain situations. For example, § 7117 provides that collective 

bargaining does not extend to any matter that is inconsistent with a Government-wide regulation. 

As a result, the three-member Authority panel expected to develop expertise in Federal 

sector labor law has been required in many cases to reach decisions based on laws far afield 

from the Statute itself. In addition to the Constitution and Government-wide regulations 

mentioned above, these include organic statutes and authorization acts governing the agencyFLRA - 20 Years 19 
employer, and the rules and regulations that it has adopted. For example, in New Hampshire 

National Guard (1998), the Authority was required to interpret various provisions of the 

Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 1995, as well as a criminal statute, in determining 

whether the agency acted lawfully when it refused to permit the union to use official time for 

certain lobbying activities. The Authority's decision itself was reviewed, and affirmed, by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Granite State Chapter, ACT v. FLRA (1st Cir. 

1999). 

The Role of the Federal Courts of Appeals 

As mentioned earlier, one of the significant ways the Statute changed the Federal labor 

relations program was by authorizing judicial review of certain Authority decisions. The Federal 

courts are involved in interpreting and applying the Statute in several contexts. 

20 

•!• First, upon issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint, § 7123( d) permits the 

Authority to petition a United States district court for injunctive relief. An example of 

a case in which this occurred is FLRA v. Federal Deposit Insurance C01p. (D.C. Cir. 

1991), where the agency was enjoined from refusing to recognize and enter into collective 

bargaining with a newly-certified labor organization. 

"':"' Second, the Statute provides in § 7123(b) for the Authority to file petitions in an 

appropriate United States court of appeals to enforce Authority orders. Although the 

Authority is not often required to pursue pnforcement action, such actions have been 

maintained against agencies, see, e.g., FlRA v. Department of Air Force'(D.C. Cir. 

1984), and unions, see, e.g., FLRA v. AFGE, Local 987 (11th Cir. 1994). 

•:• Third,§ 7123(a) makes certain but not all-final orders of the Authority subject 

to direct judicial review in any United States court of appeals (except for the Federal 

Circuit) in which the party aggrieved by the order resides or does business. On an 

average, over the past 20 years, 12 percent of the Authority decisions that are subject to 

judicial review have bepn appealed and decided on the merits by a Federal court. The 

annual percentage of decisions appealed has ranged from a high of 24 percent of Authority 

decisions issued in fiscal year 1989 to a low of 4 percent of Authority decisions issued 

in fiscal year 1994. The two categories of Authority decisions that are expressly excluded 

from direct review are those resolving exceptions to arbitration awards (unless the award 

involves an unfair labor practice) and resolving representation petitions. In addition to 

regularly declining jurisdiction over appeals directly challenging Authority decisions 

FLRA - 20 Years 
resolving arbitration exceptions, courts have declined jurisdiction over collateral 

challenges to an arbitration award. See Department of Health and Human Services v. 

FLRA (D.C. Cir.1992). Further, the "final order of the Authority" requirement has led 

courts to rule that they do not have jurisdiction to review either the General Counsel's 

refusal to issue an unfair labor practice complaint, see, e.g.,Turgeon v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 

1982), or a Panel decision, Council of Prison Locals v. Brewer (D.C. Cir. 1984). 

Appellate Court Decisions Interpreting the Statute 

Judicial review of the merits of over 435 Authority decisions over the past 20 years has 

produced a body of law that has significantly shaped the interpretation and application of the 

Statute. There are numerous examples of Federal labor law doctrines that have been greatly 

influenced by judicial review. In some cases courts have expanded interpretations initially 

reached in Authority decisions; in others, they have narrowed the Authority's initial ruling 

about what a section of the Statute means. 

One of the sections of the Statute that has been elucidated as a result of judicial review 

- sometimes to expand bargaining and sometimes to narrow it-is§ 7106(b )(3), which requires 

bargaining over "appropriate arrangements." InAFGE Local 2782 v. FLRA (D. C. Cir. 1983 ), 

for example, the court disagreed with the Authority's interpretation of the term "appropriate" as 

too limited- rejecting the Authority's "direct interference" test in favor of one that measures 

whether a particular proposal interferes with a management prerogative to an "excessive degree." 

The consequence of this ruling was to expand the scppe of collective bargaining; the ,decision 

became the underpinning of the excessive interfe'rence test adopted by the Authority for 

determining whether a proposal is a negotiable arrangement. Kansas Army National Guard 

(1986). 

On the other hand, in Minerals Management Service v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1992), the 

court disagreed with the Authority's interpretation of the term "arrangement," holding that 

§ 7106(b )(3) applies "only where the Authority has identified the reasonably foreseeable adverse 

effects that will flow from some management action; and only when the proposed arrangement 

is tailored to benefit or compensate those employees suffering those adverse effects." The 

same year, the same court ruled in Office of Chief Counsel, IRS v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1992) that 

adverse effects could not flow from the denial of a negotiated benefit. The result of these 

judicial decisions was to narrow the scope of collective bargaining. 

FLRA - 20 Years 21 
Decisional law construing the meaning of the term "necessary" under § 7114(b )( 4 ), 

which defines the circumstances in which an agency is obligated to provide a union information 

it has requested, also has been greatly influenced by judicial review. The Authority has issued 

nearly 200 decisions (almost 3000 pages) turning on whether requested information was 

"necessary," and courts have issued over 14 decisions reviewing Authority rulings on this subject. 

These numbers do not include the numerous Authority and judicial decisions resolving whether 

agencies are obligated to provide unions with unit employees' names and home addresses - a 

particular subset of information cases that clogged the Authority's and the courts' dockets for 

several years and ultimately required resolution by the Supreme Court. Prior to 1997, no 

Authority decision - whether finding that requested information (excluding name~and home 

addresses) was necessary, or finding that it was not - was affirmed in court. · 

In a series of decisions starting with NLRB v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1992), the D.C. Circuit 

and other courts elucidated their view of the meaning of the statutory term "necessary," ruling 

that the Authority must consider both the union's "particularized need" for the information 

sought and the agency's "countervailing anti-disclosure interests." In Internal Revenue Service, 

Washington, D.C. (1995), the Authority followed the courts' directions and explained how it 

would determine when such "particularized need" was established. The Authority emphasized 

that both parties must be clear with each other the union about its need and the agency about 

its countervailing interests - at the time information is requested. In doing so, the Authority 

reasoned that a policy based on direct and timely exchange about the respective agency and 

union interests may enable them to find a solution that accommodates both labor and 

management's concerns - serving the important, Statutory purposes of promoting collective 

bargaining and facilitating the amicable resolution of disputes. 

Since this 1995 Authority decision, the new standard and its application has been 

challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in three cases. In 

contrast to previous appeals on the subject, the Authority's decisions were upheld in all three 

cases. In two of these cases, the Authority ruled that agencies had committed unfair labor 

practices by failing to provide requested information to unions. Department of the Air Force, 

Scott Air Force Base v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1997) and Department of Justice, INS, Northern 

Region v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1998). In the third, the Authority held that the union had failed to 

articulate a particularized need for documents and that, therefore, the agency had not improperly 

refused to provide the documents. AFGE, Local 2342 v. FLRA (D.C. Cir. 1998) . 

. f 

22 FLRA - 20 Years 
Split Appellate Court Rulings and Supreme Court Review 

The difficulty in untangling the meaning of certain sections of the Statute has led Federal 

courts reviewing Authority decisions to disagree in their interpretation of what the Statute 

requires. These "Circuit court splits" have been resolved by the Supreme Court in six decisions 

over the past 20 years, with a seventh case recently argued and awaiting decision by the Court. 

In all seven cases, the Authority was defending its view of the Statute against the arguments by 

the United States Solicitor General, on behalf of an agency-employer, that the Authority's reading 

of the Statute was improperly expansive. It is relatively unusual for two Executive Branch 

agencies to appear before the Supreme Court in the roles of both petitioner and respontlent --

leading more than one Supreme Court Justice to express puzzlement over the situation. Of 

course, were the FLRA to simply agree with an agency-employer's view of what the Statute 

requires, there would be no need for Congress to have established an independent adjudicatory 

panel to decide labor law disputes between Federal agencies and unions under the Statute. 

In four of the cases decided by the Supreme Court, the Authority's construction of the 

Statute was rejected: 

•:•In Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA (1983), the Court ruled that 

§ 7131 does not require the payment of travel expenses and per diem allowances for 

union employee negotiators. 

+:• InFLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground (198()), the Court held that§ 7117(b) provides 

the exclusive procedure for determining whether there is a compelling need for aii agency 

regulation. 

•:• In Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service v. FLRA (1990), the Court 

ruled that the Statute precludes bargaining over proposals that would subject matters 

included within § 7106(a)(2)(B) to contractual grievance procedures unless those 

proposals involve conformity with applicable laws. 

•:•In U.S. Department of Defense v. FLRA (1994), the Court held that disclosure of the 

home addresses of bargaining unit employees to a union is prohibited under the Privacy 

Act. This question had spawned the largest number of ULP charge filings and cases 

litigated in the FLRA' s history. 

FLRA - 20 Years 23 
In two of the decided cases, the Supreme Court agreed with the Authority's construction 

of the Statute: 

•:• InFortStewartSchools v. FLRA (1990) the Court upheld the Authority's determination 

that certain agencies were required to bargain over employee wages and fringe benefits. 

•:• InNFFE, Local 1309 v. FLRA (1999), the Court agreed with the Authority that the 

Statute does not clearly prohibit mid-term bargaining, holding that it would defer to the 

Authority's determination on the issue. 

Finally, the Court's decision is awaited in a case argued recently,Nationa!Aeronautics 

and Space Administration v. FLRA, involving the issue of whether an investigator employed by 

an agency's Inspector General is properly considered a "representative of the agency" for purposes 

of§ 7114(a)(2)(B), which establishes the Weingarten right for Federal employees. 

The effect on Federal sector labor law of the Supreme Court's decisions can be far 

reaching. Based on the Supreme Court's decision inlnternal Revenue Service v .. FLRA, described 

above, the Authority reevaluated the test used to determine whether an arbitration award is 

deficient as contrary to management's rights. The Authority held that an award that affects 

management rights under § 7106(a)(2) may not provide a remedy except for a violation of 

applicable law or a contract provision that was negotiated pursuant to § 7106(b ), and that an 

award remedying such a violation must reconstruct what management would have done if it 

bad acted proper I y. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing ( 1997). 

f 

Judicial Review of Authority Decisions 

,, 

A study of the Authority's decisions reported on the occasion of the Statute's 10th anniversary, 

identified the Authority's failure to achieve greater judicial deference to its administrative expertise as a 

significant problem for Federal sector labor relations. (Patricia W. Ingraham and David H. Rosenbloom, 

eds., The Promise and Paradox of Civil Service Reform, University of Pittsburgh Press (1992) at 

154). The study examined statistics as well as comments in judicial opinions reviewing Authority 

decisions through 1987. Among the author's basic premises was that: (1) "inconsistencies and unclarities 

in FLRA legal decisions and interpretations make it difficult for the parties to collective bargaining to 

know what the ground rules are"· and (2) molding the Statute into a "coherent body oflaw" is essential 

for the "creation and regulation of a vigorous bilateral collective bargaining system." Identifying this as 

an area where improvement was needed, the author concluded that "labof relations in the federal 

24 FLRA - 20 Years 
service would benefit substantially if the FLRA could command greater deference from the federal 

judiciary." 

On its 20th anniversary, a 

review of appellate statistics and 

judicial comments indicates that this 

challenge is being met. Authority 

decisions issued in the last four years 

and reviewed on the merits by 

Federal courts were the subject of 

favorable appellate opinions in 

approximately 84 percent of the 

cases, as compared with an overall 

favorable rate of only 52 percent 

for Authority decisions reviewed in 

the preceding 16 years. A number 

of factors undoubtedly contributed 

to this improvement, including a 

APPELLATE REVIEW OF AUTHORITY DECISIONS 

Fiscal Year of Authority 

Decision 

1979-82 

1983-86 

1987-90 

1991-94 

1995-98 

Percent of Court Decisions 

Affirming Authority on the 

Merits in Whole or 

Substantial Part 

54% fe 

58% 

53% 

43% 

84%11 

11 Does not include 10 Authority decisions issued from 1995 through 1998 

currently pending Court decision. 

reduced number of appeals due to the general reduction in the number of cases litigated before, and 

decided by, the Authority. The increased judicial deference was not, however, a random 

accomplishment: it followed a deliberate focus on the quality of FLRA decisions during the period 

beginning in 1995. 

In its decision on March 9, 1999, inNFFE, Local 1309 v. FLRA, the Supreme Court stated: 

The Authority would seem hetter suited than a court to make the workplace-related 

empirical judgments that would help properly balance ... policy-related considerations . 

. . . [T]he Agency's policy arguments illustrate the need for the Authority's elaboration 

or refinement of the basic statutory collective-bargaining obligations; they illustrate the 

appropriateness of judicial deference to considered Authority views on the matter .... 

FLRA - 20 Years 25 
THE FLRA AND ITS EMPLOYEES 

"For two decades, the men and women of the FLRA have worked with skill and 

dedication to ensure fairness in labor practices at federal departments and 

agencies." President William Jefferson Clinton (April 29, 1999) 

Organizational Structure and Operations 

The FLRA is a small, but complex organization due to its structure - essentially, it is 

three independent agencies in one: the Authority, the Office of the General Counsel and the 

Panel. The FLRA Chair serves as both Chair of the Authority and the agency's Chief 

Executive and Administrative Officer. However, separate lines of authority within each 

component established by the Statute ensure independence between the various functions 

performed by each, primarily the roles of prosecutor and adjudicator. The General Counsel 

directs all Office of the General Counsel employees, who comprise over 50 percent of the 

FLRA staff, including the regional offices. The Chair of the Federal Service Impasses Panel 

directs the Panel staff. 

Since 1979, 12 men and women have served as Members of the Authority - the 

adjudicators who have issued final decisions in cases litigated before the agency. Six of 

these individuals have led the FLRA as its Chair. During these 20 .years, there have been 

seven General Counsels. Since it was established in 1970, a total of 30 men and women have 

served as Members of the Panel; six of them have served as the Panel's Chair. As this 

publication illustrates, under this leadership the FLRA has undergone a number of changes 

both to the program and to the organizational structure of the agency. What has remained 

constant is the commitment of FLRA' s Presidentially-appointed leadership and career staff to 

resolving disputes and improving relationships within the Federal labor-management 

community. 

The Authority was originally organized around a central staff, which supported the 

decisional work of the Authority Members. In 1980, the Members appointed a Chief Counsel, 

who coordinated six teams of subject matter specialists and supervisors. After an extensive 

26 FLRA - 20 Years 
internal study, the Authority restructured its staff in 1986 into separate staffs for each Member, 

each headed by a Chief Counsel. In response to reduced case filings in recent years, however, 

staff reductions and reorganizations have re-introduced some centralized case processing in 

specific areas. 

The Administrative Law Judge function was transferred from the Department of Labor 

in 1979 to hear and render decisions in cases involving unfair labor practices. While the 

number of judges has been reduced over the years, consistent with a declining caseload, the 

structure of the Authority's Office of Administrative Law Judges remained unchanged until 

1995, when a settlement attorney position was established under the settlement judge program. 

This program is designed to encourage and assist parties to resolve cases in a collaborative 

fashion, without a hearing and Judge's decision. 

Initially, the regional office personnel occupied nine regional offices and a number of 

resident offices that had been used by the Department of Labor under the Executive Order 

program. These locations were chosen based on the pattern of case filings under the prior 

program. Experience under the Statute, as well as eventual budgetary constraints, resulted in 

changes over the years. By 1996, two of the original regional offices - New York and 

Los Angeles - had been closed, as well as all of the resident offices. Currently, there are 

seven regional offices and two "remote duty" stations, one of which operates from a 

telecommuting center. In order to ensure cost-effective case processing and meet a strategic 

objective of case and staffing parity among the regional offices, the geographic jurisdiction of 

several regional offices has changed over the years., Also, the organizational struct~re has 

been changed to include senior level employees serving as functional experts in litigation, 

representation and dispute resolution. 

Although the Panel has changed its methods of resolving disputes by operating in a 

less formal fashion and introducing more flexible, case-oriented processes, the size and structure 

of the Panel staff has changed very little over the years. 

The agency central management offices have always been housed within the Authority 

component in support of the chief executive and administrative officer responsibilities of the 

FLRA Chair. These programs include the Office of the Solicitor, which represents the 

Authority in court proceedings and provides in-house counsel and legal advice to all 

components; the Inspector General activities; External and Congressional Affairs activities; 

and the Office of the Executive Director functions such as human resources, information 

technology, budget and procurement. In addition, the Office of the Executive Director manages 

FLRA - 20 Years 27 
agency-wide initiatives such as strategic planning, internal labor-management activities and 

performance management. 

Over the years, there has been a commitment to providing quality administrative 

services, such as personnel, procurement and automation support, to agency program personnel 

in the most efficient and economical manner. This has led to reducing administrative and 

overhead costs, contracting with other government agencies for personnel and payroll processing 

functions, reinventing work processes and investing in automation. 

FLRAStaff 

Given the FLRA's statutory roles as investigator, prosecutor, adjudicator, impasse 

resolver and policy maker, its employees have always been its most important resource. 

Over the past 20 years, FLRA employees have investigated cases, held elections and conducted 

hearings throughout the world. They have persevered through a long period when the Authority 

had no quorum and others when, because no General Counsel had been appointed, that office 

had no authority to issue complaints. Employees have been relocated and offices have been 

eliminated or restructured. Yet, a skilled and loyal work force has remained and flourished 

as the FLRA has evolved to carry out its leadership role in the Federal labor-management 

relations community. 

[n January 1979, approximately 100 employees labor relations specialists, attorneys, 

administrative law judges, and support staff- trqnsferred to the new agency from the nowdefunct Federal Labor Relations Council and from the program that had been adrni~istered by 

the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations. In addition, the Panel 

Members and staff transferred virtually intact to the new entity. The unification and transfer 

initially took place on paper, as the Washington, D.C. employees remained scattered in three 

locations. In October 1981, the first unified FLRA headquarters was established at 

500 C Street, S. W. Since 1993, the FLRA headquarters has been located at 

607 14th Street, N.W. 

28 FLRA - 20 Years 
During the first year, some 100 

additional employees were hired, many of 

whom were attorneys who would handle 

the added litigation functions. By fiscal 

year 1981, the FLRA had a staffing level 

of 336. It was never to be that large again. 

One year later, the FLRA suffered a 16 

percent budget reduction and instituted a 

major reduction-in-force to meet those 

financial constraints. By the end of fiscal 

year 1983, the number of employees had 

dropped to 278. Staffing levels steadily 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

FLRA Employees 

Staffing level in 1998 was 36% lower than in 1981. 

0 ~----.-~~----~~-7--,-~~-------~ -~----~---~ .---1 

79 83 88 93 

Fiscal Year 

declined after that year. At the end of fiscal year 1998, there were 216 employees in the 

entire FLRA, only a few more than worked in the Office of the General Counsel alone in 

1981. Although the FLRA's caseload has also declined in recent years, the number of cases 

per employee today has increased by nearly 60% since 1980. 

After 20 years, the demographics of the FLRA staff are similar to the rest of the 

Federal government. Staff consists of a mix of new and experienced employees - including 

37 of the original individuals who transferred to the new agency in January 1979. In recent 

years, the agency has experienced turnover in both the headquarters and regional offices and 

has hired many new employees including recent law school graduates. It is this mix of 

experience and new ideas that continues to be the source of the FLRA's strength. '{' 

Some disparate memories from two decades: 

•!• Deployment of staff in 1981 to conduct an election among approximately 8500 

employees of the Panama Canal Commission; 

•:• "Name and home address" cases that inundated Regional Offices, ALJs and 

Authority staffs in the mid-1980's until the issue was finally resolved by the 

Supreme Court; 

•!• File cabinets full of partially prepared decisions awaiting the two Authority 

Members confirmed by the Senate in late 1989 after more than a year without 

'· a quorum; 

FLRA - 20 Years 29 
•!• The move of the FLRA headquarters offices to 607 14th Street in March 1993 

during what was then deemed "the snowstorm of the century;" and 

•:• Eight months of Panel work in 1997 on a 116-page decision on 56 issues 

arising from a RIF that was rescinded shortly after the decision issued within 

one month after the close of the arbitration hearing. 

Employee Programs 

Understanding that leadership in Federal labor-management relations had .to start in 

its own workplace, the FLRA from the beginning explored ways to improve relationships 

with its own employees. In 1980, after obtaining an opinion from the Department of Justice 

that it would be lawful to do so, the Agency recognized the Union of Authority Employees 

(UAE) - an independent, non-affiliated organization - as the bargaining representative of 

its employees. Although the FLRA is excluded from coverage under the Statute, it has 

voluntarily negotiated contracts and agreements with the UAE and has agreed to arbitration 

over a number of matters. Since 1995, the FLRA and UAE have worked together on the 

FLRA Partnership Council, which has made important contributions to the FLRA through 

initiatives that established such employee programs as alternative work schedules, new 

performance management and awards systems, and the establishment of core competencies. 

In addition, the FLRA and UAE have worked together in a collaborative manner to address 

a number of matters related to the FLRA operations including strategic planning, budget 

contingencies and reinvention work groups. 

Policies have been designed to meet employees' needs. Throughout the FLRA, 

employees have been able to choose flexible work schedules, and a le.ave-sharing policy has 

assisted a number of employees with serious health problems. Developmental training programs 

are offered at all levels, including training in mediation and facilitation skills. As part of this 

training emphasis, the FLRA recently implemented a leadership development program to 

provide non-supervisory employees with leadership and management skills. 

Finally, despite its relatively small budget, the FLRA historically has moved to bring 

technological advances to its employees. In 1986, the agency components began automating 

their work processes, including developing a data base management system. The FLRA also 

dedicated resources to creating comprehensive internal research and citator tools. As a 

result, the FLRA now maintains a state-of-the-art computer network'that provides word and 

data processing, case tracking, electronic mail and research capability to all FLRA employees. 

30 FLRA - 20 Years 
All employees in headquarters and regional offices are linked by computers, thus improving 

efficient internal communications and enabling employees to electronically access Authority 

decisions and other research data bases. 

FLRA - 20 Years 31 
ENTERING THE 21sT CENTURY 

"The Federal Labor Relations Authority [aims to fulfill] its mission by enforcing 

and clarifying the law through sound, timely decisions and policies; using fast, 

simple processes to conduct its business; providing high quality training and 

education programs and furnishing effective intervention services; and 

administering its resources to ensure that services are responsive to the unique 

needs of its customers. " (FLRA Strategic Plan) 

In 1995, the independent components of the FLRA met together for the first time to 

adopt a unified mission statement and begin to develop a 5-year strategic plan. This initiative 

was undertaken because such planning was seen as central to an .effective organization, and in 

anticipation of the September 30, 1997 effective date of the Government Performance and 

Results Act, which requires all agencies to develop multi-year strategic plans. The FLRA's 

initial plan was refined in 1996, and organizational performance goals and measures are set 

on an annual basis. These, in turn, are translated into individual goals that serve as the 

foundation for FLRA's performance management plan. The FLRA Strategic Plan has been 

cited by the Office of Management and Budget a$ a model for other small agenci~s, and was 

commended by the Senate Committee Report accompanying the FY 1998 Treasury, General 

Government and Postal Appropriations Bill. The link to performance management was 

endorsed as a "best practice" by .the Association of Government Accountants in 1999. 

As the FLRA looks back over its first 20 years and forward into the next century, it is 

guided by the four goals set forth in its strategic plan: (1) to consistently provide high quality 

services that timely resolve disputes in the Federal labor-management relations community; 

(2) to effectively use and promote alternative methods of dispute resolution and avoidance to 

reduce the costs of conflict in the Federal labor-management relations community; (3) to 

maintain FLRA internal systems and processes to support a continually improving, highly 

effective and efficient organization with the flexibility to meet program needs; and ( 4) to 

develop FLRA human resources to ensure a continually improving, highly effective and 

efficient organization with the flexibility to meet program needs. ~ 

32 FLRA - 20 Years 
More specifically, program plans for the FLRA's 21st year place an emphasis on 

increased productivity, improved timeliness and reduced backlog. In addition, initiatives 

anticipated include reviewing the process for resolving exceptions to arbitration awards, and 

a continued focus on mainstreaming collaborative dispute resolution. 

The centerpiece of this blueprint is resolving disputes and improving relationships in 

the Federal labor-management relations community - achieving the " ... stable, constructive 

labor-management relations that contribute to a more effective Government" that is the guiding 

mission of the FLRA. 

The FLRA has evolved since it opened its doors on January 1, 1979. However, it has 

always aimed to chart a course that is true to the purposes stated by Congress when it enacted 

the Statute. The same deliberate attention applied to meeting the challenges in its first 20 years 

will stand the FLRA in good stead to meet the challenges of the future. 

FLRA - 20 Years 33 
APPENDICES 

AUTHORITY CHAIRS AND MEMBERS .......................................................................... 37 

GENERAL COUNSEI~S ....................................................................................................... 39 

FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL CHAIRS AND MEMBERS ............................ 41 

FOREIGN SERVICE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND MEMBERS .......................... 43 

FOREIGN SERVICE IMPASSE DISPUTES PANEL CHAIRS AND MEMBERS ............ 45 

CITATIONS TO DECISIONS .............................................................................................. 47 

FLRA - 20 Years 35 
PEND IX 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

AUTHORITY 

1979-1999 

The Authority is composed of three Members who are appointed for 5-year terms by the 

President with the advice and consent of the Senate. One Member is appointed by the 

President to serve as the Chair of the Authority and Chief Executive and Administrative 

Officer of the FLRA 

CHAIRS 

Ronald W. Haughton 

Barbara J. Mahone 

Henry B. Frazier, IIIJJ 

Jerry L. Calhoun 

Jean McKee 

Phyllis N. Segal 

1979-1983 

1983-1984 

1984-1985 

1985-1988 

1989-1994 

1994-Present 

MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY 

Henry B. Frazier, III 

Tony Armendariz 

Dale Cabaniss 

11 Acting Chairman 

FLRA - 20 Years 

1979-1987 

1989-1997 

1997-Present 

Leon B. Applewhaite 

Barbara J. Mahone 

William J. McGinnis, Jr. 

Jean McKee 

Phyllis N. Segal 

Ronald W. Haughton 

Jerry L. Calhoun 

Pamela Talkin 

Donald S. Wasserman 

1979-1983 

1983-1984 

1984-1985 

1986-1994 

1994-Present 

1979-1984 

1985-1988 

1989-1995 

1996-Present 

37 
APPENDIX B 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

1979~1999 

The FLRA General Counsel is appointed to a 5-year term by the President with the advice 

and consent of the Senate. 

GENERAL COUNSELS 

H. Stephen Gordon 1979-1982 

S. Jesse Reubenl! 1982-1983 

John C. Miller 1983-1987 

Dennis M. Devaney 1987-1988 

Kathleen Day Koch 1988-1992 

Alan R. Swendiman 1992-1993 

Joseph Swerdzewski 1993-Present 

1/ Acting General Counsel 

FLRA - 20 Years 39 
APPENDIX C 

FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL 1970~1999 

The Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) is composed of seven part-time Members who are 

appointed by the President to serve for 5-year terms. One Member is appointed by the 

President to serve as Chair of the Federal Service Impasses Panel. 

John J. McGovern 

Jacob Seiden berg 

J ailles Vadakin 

Lloyd Bailer 

Richard Epstein 

Arthur Stark 

Jean McKelvey 

Albert McDermott 

Robert G. Howlett 

Irving Bernstein 

J ailles E. Jones 

Charles J. Morris 

Beverly Schaffer 

Howard Gamser 

Donald F. Rodgers 

N. Victor Goodillan 

FLRA 20 Years 

CHAIRS 

Jacob Seidenberg 

Robert G. Howlett 

Howard Gaillser 

Robert G. Howlett 

Roy M. Brewer 

Edwin D. Brubeck 

Betty A. Bolden 

MEMBERS 

1970-1972 

1970-1975 

1970-1978 

1970-1978 

1970-1978 

1970-1982 

1970-1990 

1972-1978 

1976-1978 

1978-1980 

1978-1982 

1978-1983 

1978-1983 

1979-1981 

1982-1983 

1982-1994 

1970-1975 

1976-1978 

1979-1981 

1982-1983 

1984-1991 

1991-1994 

1994-Present 

Daniel H. Kruger 

Robert G. Howlett 

;Thomas Farr 

Susan Robfogel 

Roy M. Brewer 

John Van De WateF 

Edwin D. Brubeck 

Charles A. Kothe 

Dolly M. Gee 

Betty A. Bolden 

Edward F. Hartfield 

Stanley M. Fisher 

Gilbert Carrillo 

Bonnie P. Castrey 

Mary E. Jacksteit 

1982-1994 

1983-1990 

19s3-19go 

1983-1994 

1983-1994 

1988-1994 

1990-1994 

1990-1994 

1994-1999 

1994-Present 

1994-Present 

1994-Present 

1995-1999 

1995-Present 

1995-Present 

41 
APPENDIX 

FOREIGN SERVICE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

1981-1999 

The Foreign Service Labor Relations Board is composed of three Members who are appointed 

by the Chair of the Authority, who also serves as Chair of the Foreign Service Labor Relations 

Board. The General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority serves as General 

Counsel of the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board. 

Stephen Gordon 

S. Jesse ReubenY 

John C. Miller 

Dennis M. Devaney 

Kathleen Day Koch 

Alan R. Swendiman 

Joseph Swerdzewski 

Acting Chairman 

CHAIRS 

Ronald W. Haughton 

Barbara J. Mahone 

Henry B. Frazier, IUlf 

Jerry L. Calhoun 

Jean McKee 

Phyllis N. Segal 

1981-1983 

1983-1984 

1984-1985 

1985-1988 

1989-1994 

1994-Present 

MEMBERS 

1981-1982 Arnold M. Zack 

1982-1983 Arnold Ordman 

1983-1987 Marcia Greenbaum 

1987-1988 Tia Schneider Denenberg 

1988-1992 Ira Jaffe 

1992-1993 Richard I. Bloch 

1993-Present 

21 Acting General Counsel 

FLRA - 20 Years 

1981-1984 

1981-1986 

1986-1992 

1986-Present 

1992-1995 

1998-Present 

43 
APPENDIXE 

FOREIGN SERVICE IMPASSE DISPUTES PANEL 

1982-1999 

The Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel is composed of five part-time Members who are 

appointed by the Chair of the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board (the FLRA Chair). One 

Member is appointed by the FLRA Chair to serve as Chair of the Foreign Service Impasse 

Disputes Panel. 

Robert G. Howlett 

Francis J. McNeil 

Rodney W. Johnson 

Julius Balog, Jr. 

Anthonv M. Kern ; 

Diane Blane 

N. Victor Goodman 

William G. Robinson 

Edwin D. Brubeck 

FLRA - 20 Years 

CHAIRS 

Margery Gootnick, Chair 

Thomas Colosi, Chair 

1982-1997 

1997-Present 

MEMBERS 

1982-1988 Eleanore Raven-Hamilton 

1982-1988 Ralph H. Ruedy 

1982-1988 Robert S. Deutsch 

1982-1992 Betty Bolden 

1988-1991 J. !Douglas Marchant 

1990-1992 Dorothy Young 

1990-1992 George Lannon 

1991-1995 David W. Geiss 

1992-1994 Allen Keiswetter 

1992-1993 

1992-1995 

1993-1996 

1994-Present 

1995-1996 

1996-Present 

1996-1998 

1997-Present 

1999-Present 

45 
APPENDIX F 

CITATIONS TO DECISIONS 

Supreme Court 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89 (1983) 

Dep't of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (1994) 

Dep't of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service v. FLRA, 494 U.S. 922 (1990) 

FLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Dep't of Army, 485 U.S. 409 (1988) 

Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641 (1990) 

NFFE v. Dep't of Interior, 119 S.Ct 1003 (1999) 

Courts of Appeals 

AFGE, Local 2782 v. FLRA, 702 F.2d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 

Council of Prison Locals v. Brewer, 735 F.2d 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 

Dep't of the Army v. FLRA, 56 F.3d 273 (D.C. Cir. 1995) 

Dep't of HHS, Social Security Admin. v. FLRA, 976 F.2d 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 

Dep 't of Interior, Minerals Management Service v. FLRA, 969 F.2d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 

Dep't of Treasury, Office of Chief Counsel, IRS v. FLRA, 960 F.2d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 

FLRA v. AFGE, Local 987, 15 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1994) 

FLRA v. Dep't of Air Force, Oklahoma City, 735 F.2d 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 

FLRA v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,# 91-1207 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 9, 1991) 

Granite State Chapter, ACT v. FLRA, 1999 WL 173554 (1st Cir. Apr. 1, 1999) 

NLRB v. FLRA, 952 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 

NTEU v. FLRA, 910 F.2d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en bane) 

Turgeon v. FLRA, 677 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 

Authority , 

AFGE~ Local 2343, 52 FLRA 1195 (1997), enfd. 144 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 

AFGE, Local 2327 and Dep't of HHS, Social Security Administration, 5 FLRA 189 (1981) 

Dep't of Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, 14 FLRA 390 (1984) 

Dep't of Air Force, Scott AFB, 51 FLRA 675 (1995), enfd. 104 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 

Dep 't of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Safford, Arizona, 35 FLRA 431 (1990) 

Dep't of Treaswy, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 53 FLRA 136 (1997) 

Division of Military and Naval Affairs, New York National Guard, 53 FLRA 111 (1997) 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Internal Affairs, 54 FLRA 1502 (1998) 

Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA 604 (1982) 

F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 52 FLRA 149 (1996) 

INS, 51 FLRA 1467 (1996); 52 FLRA 1323 (1997) enfd. 144 F.3d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 

IRS~ Washington, D.C. and IRS, Kansas City Service Center, 50 FLRA 661 (1995) 

Interpretation and Guidance, 2 FLRA 274 (1979) 

NACE, Local R14-87 and Kansas Army National Guard, 21FLRA24 (1986) 

Office of Adjutant General, New Hampshire National Guard, 54 FLRA 301 (1998) 

Sacramento Army Depot, Sacrqmento, California, 49 FLRA 1681 (1994) 

FLRA - 20 Y cars 47