Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/464/89
Timestamp: 2020-01-29 10:41:13
Document Index: 632037519

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7131', '§ 7131', '§ 7131', '§ 7101', '§ 7102', '§ 7116', '§ 7106', '§ 7103', '§ 7116', '§ 7131', '§ 7131', '§ 7131', '§ 6322', '§ 6323', '§ 5751', '§ 7131', '§ 7131', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 7131', '§ 7105']

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, Petitioner v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
464 U.S. 89 (104 S.Ct. 439, 78 L.Ed.2d 195)
Decided: Nov. 29, 1983.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Act) in 5 U.S.C. 7131(a) requires federal agencies to grant to employees representing their union in collective bargaining with the agencies "official time . . . during the time the employee otherwise would be in a duty status." This allows the employee negotiators to be paid as if they were at work, whenever they bargain during hours they would otherwise be on duty. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in an "Interpretation and Guidance" of general applicability construed § 7131(a)'s grant of official time as also entitling employee negotiators to a per diem allowance and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in connection with collective bargaining. In this case, the Court of Appeals enforced an FLRA order requiring petitioner federal agency to pay an employee union representative per diem and travel expenses in addition to his salary, finding the FLRA's interpretation of the statute "reasonably defensible."
Held: The FLRA's interpretation of § 7131(a) constitutes an "unauthorized assumption by the agency of a major policy decision properly made by Congress," American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300, 318, 85 S.Ct. 955, 967, 13 L.Ed.2d 855. Pp. 96-108.
(c) The FLRA's interpretation of § 7131(a) is not supported by the Travel Expense Act, 5 U.S.C. 5702, which authorizes a per diem allowance for a federal employee "travelling on official business away from his designated post of duty." Neither Congress' declaration that collective bargaining is in the public interest nor its use of the term "official time" warrants the conclusion that employee negotiators are on "official business" of the Government. Pp. 106-107.
Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ("Act"), Pub.L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 5 U.S.C. 7131(a), requires federal agencies to grant "official time" to employees representing their union in collective bargaining with the agencies. The grant of official time allows the employee negotiators to be paid as if they were at work, whenever they bargain during hours they would otherwise be on duty. The Federal Labor Relations Authority ("FLRA" or "Authority") concluded that the grant of official time also entitles employee union representatives to a per diem allowance and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in connection with collective bargaining. 2 F.L.R.A. 265 (1979). In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced an FLRA order requiring an agency to pay a union negotiator travel expenses and a per diem, finding the Authority's interpretation of the statute "reasonably defensible." 672 F.2d 732 (1982). Three other Courts of Appeals have rejected the FLRA's construction of the Act.1 We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 459 U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 784, 74 L.Ed.2d 992 (1983), and now reverse.
The new Act, declaring that "labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest," 5 U.S.C. 7101(a), significantly strengthened the position of public employee unions while carefully preserving the ability of federal managers to maintain "an effective and efficient Government," § 7101(b).4 Title VII expressly protects the rights of federal employees "to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity," § 7102, and imposes on federal agencies and labor organizations a duty to bargain collectively in good faith, § 7116(a)(5) and (b)(5). The Act excludes certain management prerogatives from the scope of negotiations, although an agency must bargain over the procedures by which these management rights are exercised. See § 7106. In general, unions and federal agencies must negotiate over terms and conditions of employment, unless a bargaining proposal is inconsistent with existing federal law, rule, or regulation. See §§ 7103(a), 7114, 7116, and 7117(a). Strikes and certain other forms of concerted activities by federal employees are illegal and constitute unfair labor practices under the Act, § 7116(b)(7)(A).
While the charge was pending, the FLRA issued an "Interpretation and Guidance" of general applicability which required federal agencies to pay salaries, travel expenses, and per diem allowances to union representatives engaged in collective bargaining with the agencies.5 2 F.L.R.A. 265 (1979). The Interpretation relied on § 7131(a) of the Act, which provides that "any employee representing an exclusive representative in the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement . . . shall be authorized official time for such purposes. . . ." The Authority concluded that an employee's entitlement to official time under this provision extends to "all negotiations between an exclusive representative and an agency, regardless of whether such negotiations pertain to the negotiation or renegotiation of a basic collective bargaining agreement." 2 F.L.R.A., at 268. The Authority further determined that § 7131(a) requires agencies to pay a per diem allowance and travel expenses to employees representing their union in such negotiations. Id., at 270.
Respondents also find their understanding of the role of union representatives supported by Congress's use of the phrase "official time" in § 7131(a). For respondents, the use of this term indicates an intent to treat employee negotiators "as doing the government's work for all the usual purposes," and therefore entitled to "all attributes of employment," including travel expenses and a per diem allowance. Brief for NTEU at 24-28. They suggest that, if Congress intended to maintain only the employees' salaries, it would have granted them "leave without loss of pay," a term it has used in other statutes. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 6321 (absence of veterans to attend funeral services), § 6322(a) (jury or witness duty), and § 6323 (military reserve duty). In contrast, Congress uses the terms "official capacity" and "duty status" to indicate that an employee is "on the job" and entitled to all the usual liabilities and privileges of employment. See, e.g., §§ 5751, 6322(b) (employee summoned to testify in "official capacity" entitled to travel expenses).14
Perhaps recognizing that authority for travel expenses and per diem allowances cannot be found within the four corners of § 7131(a), respondents alternatively contend that the Authority's decision is supported by the Travel Expense Act, 5 U.S.C. 5702, which provides that a federal employee "travelling on official business away from his designated post of duty . . . is entitled to . . . a per diem allowance." The Travel Expense Act is administered by the Comptroller General who has concluded that agencies may authorize per diem allowances for travel that is "sufficiently in the interest of the United States so as to be regarded as official business." 44 Comp.Gen. 188, 189 (1964). Under the Executive Order regime, the Comptroller General authorized per diem payments to employee negotiators pursuant to this statute upon a certification that the employees' travel served the convenience of the employing agency. See n. 11, supra.
In passing the Civil Service Reform Act, Congress unquestionably intended to strengthen the position of federal unions and to make the collective-bargaining process a more effective instrument of the public interest than it had been under the Executive Order regime. See supra, at 2-3. There is no evidence, however, that the Act departed from the basic assumption underlying collective bargaining in both the public and the private sector that the parties "proceed from contrary and to an extent antagonistic viewpoints and concepts of self-interest." NLRB v. Insurance Agents, 361 U.S. 477, 488, 80 S.Ct. 419, 426, 4 L.Ed.2d 454 (1960), quoted in General Building Contractors Association, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 394, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 3152, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982). Nor did the Act confer on the FLRA an unconstrained authority to equalize the economic positions of union and management. See American Ship Building v. NLRB, supra, 380 U.S., at 316-318, 85 S.Ct., at 966-967. We conclude, therefore, that the FLRA's interpretation of § 7131(a) constitutes an "unauthorized assumption by the agency of a major policy decision properly made by Congress." Id., at 318, 85 S.Ct., at 967.
Certain federal employees, including members of the military and the Foreign Service, and certain federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, are excluded from the coverage of Title VII. 5 U.S.C. 7102(a)(2) and (3).
The decisions of the FLRA are subject to judicial review in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706. See 5 U.S.C. 7123(c). The APA requires a reviewing court to "decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action." § 706. The court must set aside agency actions and conclusions found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" or "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right." § 706(2)(A) and (C).
Petitioner suggests that we should accord little deference to the Authority's decision in this case for two reasons. First, petitioner contends that the FLRA's conclusion that employee negotiators are entitled to travel expenses and a per diem allowance was based largely on the Authority's reading of the Travel Expense Act, 5 U.S.C. 5702, a statute the FLRA does not administer. As we understand the FLRA's decision, however, the Authority's view that the Travel Expense Act supported its conclusion derived primarily from its interpretation of § 7131. See infra, at 106.
Second, petitioner argues that the Interpretation and Guidance is entitled to less weight since it was apparently an "interpretative rule" rather than an "administrative regulation." See n. 5, supra. Congress did, however, afford the FLRA broad authority to establish policies consistent with the Act, see §§ 7105 and 7134, and the Interpretation and Guidance was attended by at least some of the procedural characteristics of a rulemaking. See n. 5, supra. See 5 U.S.C. 553. Compare FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 37, 102 S.Ct. 38, 45, 70 L.Ed.2d 23 (1981), with General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 141-142, 97 S.Ct. 401, 410-411, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976). In any event, we find it unnecessary to rest our decision on a precise classification of the FLRA's action. As we explain in the text, an agency acting within its authority to make policy choices consistent with the congressional mandate should receive considerable deference from courts, provided, of course, that its actions conform to applicable procedural requirements and are not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with law," 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). See, e.g., Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 424-426, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 2404-2406, 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977); FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 137-138, 60 S.Ct. 437, 438-439, 84 L.Ed. 656 (1940). When an agency's decision is premised on its understanding of a specific congressional intent, however, it engages in the quintessential judicial function of deciding what a statute means. In that case, the agency's interpretation, particularly to the extent it rests on factual premises within its expertise, may be influential, but it cannot bind a court. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, supra; Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 192-193, 90 S.Ct. 314, 327-328, 24 L.Ed.2d 345 (1969); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 164, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the FLRA's decision in this case neither rests on specific congressional intent nor is consistent with the policies underlying the Act.
The 1962 Executive Order contained no reference to travel expenses or per diem allowances. The decision that such payments were not available was made in 1965 by the Comptroller General, 44 Comp.Gen. 617 (1965), who is authorized to give agencies guidance concerning such disbursements. See 31 U.S.C. 3529. The following year, the Comptroller General modified his position and approved new guidelines issued by the Civil Service Commission. 46 Comp.Gen. 21, 21-22 (1966). The guidelines provided that, while employees should not generally be allowed travel expenses to attend negotiations, such expenses would be approved if an agency head certified that the employee representatives' travel would be in the "primary interest of the government." Ibid. An agency might make such a certification when, for example, it would be more convenient for management to meet at a particular site and more economical to pay the employees' costs of travelling there than to pay the cost for agency representatives to travel to a different site. Ibid. This exception to the earlier prohibition on travel expenses was, by its terms, consistent with the Comptroller General's view that employee negotiators act principally in the interest of their union and not on official business for the United States.
As further support for their reading of "official time," respondents contend that union representatives engaged in collective bargaining may be entitled to benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., and may create government liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 136(b). The fact that other federal statutes, with different purposes, may be construed to apply to employee negotiators, however, does not demonstrate that, in enacting the Civil Service Reform Act, Congress intended to treat union negotiators as engaged in official business of the government.
HAYFIELD NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. and Minnesota v. CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Petitioner v. ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.
Efthimios A. KARAHALIOS, Petitioner v. NotFound
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL EMPLOYEES v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR