Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v49/49-094.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 15:39:19
Document Index: 572998493

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 668', '§ 7903', '§ 7901', '§ 7901', '§ 668', '§ 7903', '§\n668', '§ 7903', '§ 1910', '§ 668', '§ 7903', '§ 7901', '§ 7901', '§ 7901', '§ 668', '§ 7903', '§ 7901', '§ 668', '§ 7903', '§ 7901']

49:0973(94)NG - - NTEU and Treasury, IRS, Washington, DC - - 1994 FLRAdec NG - - v49 p973 | FLRA
You are hereHome 49:0973(94)NG - - NTEU and Treasury, IRS, Washington, DC - - 1994 FLRAdec NG - - v49 p973 49:0973(94)NG - - NTEU and Treasury, IRS, Washington, DC - - 1994 FLRAdec NG - - v49 p973
[ v49 p973 ] 49:0973(94)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 49 FLRA No. 94 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (Union) and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. (Agency) 0-NG-2179 _____ DECISION AND ORDER ON A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE May 17, 1994 _____ Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz. I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal
negotiability of one provision of a collective bargaining agreement that was
collective bargaining agreement relates to the Agency's decision to initiate a
new program that requires the use of video display terminals (VDTs). For the following reasons, we find that the portion of the provision
requiring the Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of corrective lenses
certified by a private physician as necessary for the employee to operate a VDT
is inconsistent with 29 U.S.C. § 668(a) and 5 U.S.C. § 7903
and, therefore, is nonnegotiable under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. We
also find that the remaining portion of the provision, which requires the
Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of an eye examination by a private
physician if the physician prescribes corrective lenses or a change in existing
lenses due to the use of a VDT, is inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. § 7901,
and, therefore, is nonnegotiable under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. II. The Provision If an employee's physician (optometrist or ophthalmologist)
prescribes corrective lenses or a change in existing lenses, and certifies that
such lenses are necessitated due to the use of VDT equipment on the job, the
Employer shall reimburse such an employee for 75% of the cost of the
prescription up to a maximum of $100.00 toward the cost of such an examination
or toward the cost of a new prescription on an annual basis. III. Positions of the Parties 1. Agency The Agency states that the corrective lenses referenced in the
provision are "ordinary corrective lenses[.]" Statement of Position at 3. The Agency contends that the portion of the provision requiring the
Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of corrective lenses is contrary
to certain decisions of the Comptroller General ruling on the general issue of
when appropriated funds may be spent for the purchase of items that could be
considered personal equipment. The Agency argues, in this connection, that
corrective lenses are items that will not primarily benefit the Government and
that they are personal in nature and, therefore, should be furnished by
employees who need them. In support of its position that appropriated funds may
not be used for this purpose, the Agency cites 63 Comp. Gen. 278 (1984) (the
purchase of corrective lenses for employees who operate VDTs may not be made
with public funds) and 61 Comp. Gen. 634 (1982) (the purchase of an air
purifier for an employee who suffers from allergies may not be made with public
funds). The Agency further contends that the portion of the provision requiring
the Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of an eye examination for the
corrective lenses is contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 7901 and Federal Personnel
Manual (FPM) chapter 792 because it requires the Agency to expend appropriated
funds for medical services not authorized by those provisions.(1) In support of its position, the
Agency cites Proposal 1 in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
1827 and Defense Mapping Agency, Aerospace Center, 26 FLRA 785 (1987)
(Defense Mapping Agency), which the Authority found to be
nonnegotiable. 2. Union The Union states that the corrective lenses referenced in the provision
are to be used by an employee for protection when operating a VDT. The Union
argues, in this connection, that the provision applies only to corrective
lenses that the employee's physician certifies are needed due to the use of VDT
equipment on the job. Consequently, the Union argues that, because the
corrective lenses must be certified as job-related, the provision is consistent
with both 29 U.S.C. § 668(a) and 5 U.S.C. § 7903, which govern
the expenditure of appropriated funds for the purchase of protective
equipment. The Union asserts that the Agency, in support of its position of
nonnegotiability, relies solely on the argument that the Comptroller General
has held that requiring an agency to reimburse an employee for corrective
lenses or for an eye examination is inconsistent with the authorized use of
appropriated funds. In this regard, the Union argues that the Authority is not
bound by Comptroller General decisions. In the alternative, the Union contends that the provision is consistent
with Comptroller General decisions because the Agency receives the primary
benefit of the corrective lenses and eye examinations for the corrective
lenses. The Union argues, in this connection, that the corrective lenses
promote productivity by assuring that the Agency will retain experienced
employees who otherwise could not operate a VDT satisfactorily and by assuring
the benefits of an automated work place. The Union further argues that the
provision is designed to allow an employee, if requested, to return the
corrective lenses to the Agency when the employee separates from employment
and, therefore, that the corrective lenses "are not necessarily personal to the
employee . . . ." Response at 6. With regard to the portion of the provision requiring reimbursements
for eye examinations, the Union maintains that the provision "only requires the
Agency to reimburse employees for eye examinations that lead to prescriptions
for corrective lenses[.]" Id. at 5. The Union contends that this
provision is similar to Proposals 2 and 4 in Defense Mapping Agency,
which the Authority found negotiable. The Union notes that in that case both
Proposal 2, requiring the Agency to provide safety glasses, and Proposal 4,
requiring the Agency to provide eye examinations for the safety glasses,
concerned the expenditure of funds for which the Government, rather than the
employee, received the primary benefit. The Union further maintains that this provision is distinguishable from
Proposal 1, which was found nonnegotiable in Defense Mapping Agency. The
Union asserts that the proposal in that case was concerned with routine eye
examinations while, by contrast, this provision is concerned with protective
equipment. IV. Analysis and Conclusions A portion of the provision requires the Agency to reimburse an employee
for the cost of corrective lenses that a private physician certifies are needed
to operate a VDT. The remaining portion of the provision requires the Agency to
reimburse an employee for the cost of an eye examination that leads to a
prescription for corrective lenses. We first address the portion of the provision requiring reimbursement
for the cost of corrective lenses. In this connection, the Union claims that
the corrective lenses are used by employees for protection in the performance
of work on a VDT. In Defense Mapping Agency, the Authority discussed the
legal requirements governing the use of appropriated funds to provide employees
with safety-related equipment. The expenditure of appropriated funds by an
agency for the purchase of such equipment is governed by 29 U.S.C. §
668(a)(2) and 5 U.S.C.
§ 7903.(3) See also Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and U.S.
41 FLRA 107, 110-11 (1991). Under those provisions, an agency may provide
equipment to employees if it is to be used for the employees' protection in the
performance of their jobs. Moreover, public monies may be expended for
protective equipment under the cited statutes only if the work performed is
hazardous. See Defense Mapping Agency, 26 FLRA at 786. In
addition, a regulation specifically addressing eye and face protection requires
agencies to provide "[s]uitable eye protectors . . . where machines
or operations present the hazard of flying objects, glare, liquids, injurious
radiation, or a combination of these hazards." 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133. We find, based on the record and consistent with these provisions of
law and regulation, that the record does not establish that corrective lenses
are safety-related equipment and, therefore, that the proposed corrective
lenses in this case may not be purchased by the Agency for unit employees. In
this regard, the Union has provided no basis for the Authority to conclude that
the use of a VDT is hazardous. Moreover, it does not appear that the corrective
lenses are related to occupational illness or injuries. Rather, it seems clear
that the Union seeks new prescriptions for employees who "may now be unable to
perform [their] work satisfactorily without corrective lenses." Response at 5.
Thus, although the corrective lenses may assist the employees to perform better
on the new equipment, there is no evidence that the lenses would be designed to
protect the employees from any hazards that might be associated with the
equipment. For example, although the applicable regulation provides that
agencies may protect employees' eyes from the hazards associated with glare,
the provision is silent regarding the provision of tinted lenses or some other
way of addressing the glare that may be associated with VDTs. In our view, the record establishes that the corrective lenses
discussed in the provision are ordinary eyeglasses that are routinely furnished
by employees when the need to correct their vision arises. Moreover, in
contrast to a hazardous situation where everyone in the workplace must be
protected against a known hazard, the lenses at issue here will be required
only by certain employees who operate VDTs. Other employees may require no
correction or may possess existing lenses that provide the necessary
correction. This conclusion is consistent with decisions of the Comptroller General
in rulings on the general issue of when appropriated funds may be spent for the
purchase of items which could be considered personal equipment. See,
for example, 63 Comp. Gen. 278 (1984); 61 Comp. Gen. 634 (1982); and 56
Comp. Gen. 398 (1977). Under those decisions, public funds may be spent for
such items only when it is determined that: (1) the Government, rather than the
employee, receives the primary benefit from the equipment; and (2) the
equipment is not a personal item that should be furnished by the employee. Based on the record before us, it has not been shown that the use of
corrective lenses to operate VDTs will be for the primary benefit of the
Government. Accord 63 Comp. Gen. 278, 281 (1984). In
addition, we are not persuaded by the Union's argument that the provision is
designed to allow an employee to return the corrective lenses to the Agency
when an employee is separated from employment and, therefore, that the
corrective lenses would be the property of the Government and not necessarily
the personal property of the employees. We note, in this regard, that most
prescription lenses cannot readily be used by other employees and, therefore,
it is unlikely that the Agency would wish to collect and recycle them. We also
reject the Union's argument that the corrective lenses promote productivity by
assuring that the Agency will retain experienced employees who otherwise could
not operate a VDT, thereby assuring the benefits of an automated work place.
The Union has not supported its argument in this regard and it is not otherwise
apparent that the provision of ordinary corrective lenses by the Agency would
promote productivity or otherwise guarantee the retention of certain employees
who operate VDTs or assure the benefits of an automated workplace. See,
for example, id. (Comptroller General found the long-range
benefits of providing corrective lenses to employees who operate VDTs to be
speculative). Consequently, we find that requiring the Agency to pay the cost of
corrective lenses for operators of VDT equipment would not be permitted under
29 U.S.C. § 668(a) or 5 U.S.C. § 7903 and, therefore, that the
provision is inconsistent with law. Accordingly, this portion of the provision
is nonnegotiable under 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. In reaching this result, we find that the instant provision is
distinguishable from Proposal 2, which was found negotiable in Defense
Mapping Agency. That proposal required the agency management to provide
safety glasses. The Authority found that the Government, rather than the
employee, received the primary benefit of the safety glasses. The record
indicated that an agency regulation provided for the provision of safety
glasses and that the regulation was not inconsistent with law or Comptroller
General decisions. This case, by contrast, concerns corrective lenses, and not
safety glasses. Moreover, the record establishes that the corrective lenses
sought in the instant case do not primarily benefit the Government and are
items that are personal in nature. We now turn to the remaining portion of the provision, which would
require the Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of an eye examination
if the physician prescribed corrective lenses or a change in existing lenses.
As noted above, the corrective lenses are ordinary eyeglasses that generally
are furnished by the employee. Consequently, we find that the provision would
effectively require the Agency to provide routine eye care by reimbursing the
employee's expenses of obtaining a prescription for eyeglasses from a private
physician. As such, we find that the provision is substantially similar to
Proposal 1 in Defense Mapping Agency, which required the Agency to
provide eye examinations to employees or to reimburse employees for the
expenses of obtaining examinations from a private physician. In concluding that
the proposal in that case was nonnegotiable, the Authority reviewed the
legislative history and stated purpose of 5 U.S.C. § 7901, which
authorizes Federal employee health programs,(4) and concluded that: [T]he statutory authorization to provide health services does not
extend to treatment beyond that involving on-the-job illness and dental
conditions of a minor nature or requiring emergency attention.
26 FLRA at 788 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). The Authority
found that the proposal in Defense Mapping Agency was inconsistent with
5 U.S.C. § 7901 because it required the Agency to provide specific medical
services exceeding the limited authorization of that section. This portion of
the provision similarly would require the Agency to provide routine eye care
beyond that of an emergency or on-the-job nature. Consequently, we find,
consistent with Proposal 1 in Defense Mapping Agency, that
this portion of the provision is inconsistent with
5 U.S.C. § 7901 because it requires the Agency to provide
specific medical services exceeding the limited authorization of that section.
Accordingly, this portion of the provision is inconsistent with law and
nonnegotiable under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. In so finding, we conclude that this portion of the provision is
distinguishable from a portion of Proposal 2 in
Defense Mapping Agency that sought eye examinations for safety
glasses prescribed for use by agency regulation. In this case, by contrast, the
eye examinations are for lenses that are required neither by regulation nor
safety considerations. In summary, we conclude that the portion of the provision requiring the
Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of corrective lenses is
29 U.S.C. § 668(a) and 5 U.S.C. § 7903.
We further find that the remaining portion of the provision, which requires the
Agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of an examination to determine
whether the employee needs corrective lenses or a change in existing lenses, is
inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. § 7901. In reaching this result,
we find no merit in the Union's assertion that the Agency's reliance on
Comptroller General decisions is misplaced because the Authority is not bound
by such decisions. Here, we did not rely solely on Comptroller General
decisions. See, for example, American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3231 and Department of Health and Human Services,
Social Security Administration, 25 FLRA 600 (1987). Instead,
we independently evaluated the provision in light of applicable law and
regulation as well as interpretive decisions of the Comptroller General.
See id. (on remand, the Authority noted the court's statement
that while a Comptroller General's decision had precedential value, it lacked
binding force and the Authority was required to evaluate independently the
union's proposal against the applicable provision of law). V. Order The petition for review is dismissed. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. The Agency cites FPM chapter 792. We
note that during the pendency of this case, various provisions of the FPM were
See FPM Sunset Document at 1. As relevant here, FPM chapter 792 has been
abolished. 2. 29 U.S.C. § 668(a)(1) and (2)
provides, in pertinent part: It shall be the responsibility of the head of each Federal agency to
establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and
health program . . . . The head of each agency shall (after consultation with
representatives of the employees thereof)-- (1) provide safe and healthful places and conditions of employment, .
. . ; [and] (2) acquire, maintain, and require the use of safety equipment,
personal protective equipment, and devices reasonably necessary to protect
employees[.] 3. 5 U.S.C. § 7903 provides, in
pertinent part: Appropriations available for the procurement of supplies and material
or equipment are available for the purchase and maintenance of special clothing
assigned tasks. . . . 4. 5 U.S.C. § 7901 provides, in
pertinent part: (a) The head of each agency of the Government of the United States
physical and mental fitness of employees under his jurisdiction. . . . . (c) A health service program is limited to-- (1) treatment of on-the-job illness and dental conditions requiring
emergency attention; (2) preemployment and other examinations; (3) referral of employees to private physicians and dentists;
and (4) preventive programs relating to
health. Federal Labor Relations Authority