Source: http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v46/46-002.html
Timestamp: 2014-07-23 15:32:58
Document Index: 769859503

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5343', '§ 5343', '§ 5596', '§ 5596', '§ 5596', '§ 5596', '§ 5343', '§ 5343', '§ 7135']

46:0009(2)CA - - Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC and Mid-Pacific Regional Office Sacramento, CA and IBEW and IBEW Local 1245 and Columbia Basin Trades Council, AFL-CIO - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v46 p9 | FLRA.GOV
Authority Chairman and Members Find Types of Cases, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, Guidances, Policies, Manuals, ULP Process, Forms, Representation, ADR Services, and Training.Federal Service Impasses Panel Find Jurisdiction, Statute, Work Schedules Act, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Solicitor, Administrative Law Judges, IG & Others Find General Information about these Offices and Contact Information.training & alternative dispute resolutionFind FLRA Training Information and ADR Services. 46:0009(2)CA - - Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC and Mid-Pacific Regional Office Sacramento, CA and IBEW and IBEW Local 1245 and Columbia Basin Trades Council, AFL-CIO - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v46 p9 [ v46 p9 ] 46:0009(2)CA The decision of the Authority follows: 46 FLRA No. 2 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WASHINGTON, D.C. and BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA (Respondents) and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS (Charging Party/Union) and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS LOCAL 1245 (Intervenor/Union) 3-CA-00633 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WASHINGTON, D.C. and BUREAU OF RECLAMATION GRAND COULEE PROJECT OFFICE GRAND COULEE, WASHINGTON (Respondents) and COLUMBIA BASIN TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO (Charging Party/Union) 39-CA-00697 DECISION AND ORDER October 5, 1992 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.(1) I. Statement of the Case This consolidated unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in
accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations,
based on the parties' stipulation of facts. The General Counsel, the
Respondents, the Charging Parties, and the Intervenor filed briefs with the
Authority. The complaint in Case No. 3-CA-00633 alleges that Respondent Bureau of
Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, California (Respondent
Mid-Pacific) violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by: (1) withdrawing its
recognition of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW),
Local 1245 as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the
Local's mixed unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory employees classified as
Working Foreman (Foreman II) and Foreman (Foreman III); (2) refusing to comply
with section 7115(a) of the Statute by discontinuing dues withholding for
employees in Foreman II and III positions; (3) placing employees in Foreman II
and III positions on an administrative pay scale; and (4) ceasing to apply to
employees in Foreman II and III positions the terms and conditions of IBEW's
collective bargaining agreement with Respondent U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C. (Respondent Reclamation) and
Respondent Mid-Pacific. The complaint also alleges that Respondent Reclamation
violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by interfering with the
bargaining relationship of the parties at the level of exclusive recognition
when it directed Respondent Mid-Pacific to engage in the conduct described
above. The complaint in Case No. 39-CA-00697 alleges that Respondent Bureau of
Reclamation, Grand Coulee Project Office, Grand Coulee, Washington (Respondent
Grand Coulee) violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by: (1)
withdrawing its recognition of the Columbia Basin Trades Council, AFL-CIO
(CBTC) as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the CBTC's
mixed unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory employees classified as Foreman II
and III; (2) refusing to comply with section 7115(a) of the Statute by
discontinuing dues withholding for employees in Foreman II and III positions;
(3) placing employees in Foreman II and III positions on an administrative pay
scale; and (4) ceasing to apply to employees in Foreman II and III positions,
and to unit employees who have been temporarily upgraded to Foreman II and
Foreman III, the terms and conditions of CBTC's collective bargaining agreement
with Respondent Reclamation and Respondent Grand Coulee. The complaint also
alleges that Respondent Reclamation violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of
the Statute by interfering with the bargaining relationship of the parties at
the level of exclusive recognition when it directed Respondent Grande Coulee to
engage in the conduct described above. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Respondent Reclamation
violated the Statute as alleged in the complaints in Case No. 3-CA-00633 and
Case No. 39-CA-00697. The other allegations of the complaints will be
dismissed. II. Background Respondent Reclamation employs certain supervisory and nonsupervisory
prevailing rate employees. Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee
are subordinate activities of Respondent Reclamation. Pursuant to section 9(b)
of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act of 1972 (PRSA), Pub. L. No. 92-392, codified
at 5 U.S.C. § 5343 (Amendments, note) and section 704 of the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 1218, codified at
5 U.S.C. § 5343 (Amendments), Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand
Coulee negotiate the wage rates of prevailing rate employees in bargaining
units represented by IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC, respectively.(2) Prior to the Respondents' actions which resulted in
the filing of the unfair labor practice complaints at issue in this
consolidated case, the units were mixed units, including both supervisory and
nonsupervisory prevailing rate employees. Respondent Reclamation had
historically negotiated on and agreed to the inclusion of supervisory employees
in Foreman II and III positions in mixed bargaining units under a succession of
agreements. See Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Yuma Projects Office, Yuma, Arizona, 8 A/SLMR 1247, 1248 (1978). In 1977, Respondent Reclamation transferred certain prevailing rate
employees, including supervisory prevailing rate employees classified as
Foreman II and III, to the Department of Energy, Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA). See Department of Energy, Western Area Power
Administration, 3 FLRA 77, 78 (1980) (WAPA 1).(3) The instant consolidated case involves only employees
in Foreman II and III positions who remained in the Department of the Interior,
not employees who were transferred to the Department of Energy. Based on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit in United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power
Administration, Golden, Colorado v. FLRA, 880 F.2d 1163, 1170 (10th Cir.
1989) (WAPA v. FLRA), Respondent Reclamation directed Respondent
Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee to remove the employees in Foreman II
and III positions from their respective bargaining units. Following the
Respondents' actions, the Unions filed the unfair labor practice charges that
are the bases of the complaints in the instant consolidated case. III. Facts A. Case No. 3-CA-00633 The parties stipulated that IBEW Local 1245 "has been the exclusive
representative of a mixed unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory [prevailing
rate] employees for collective bargaining" at Respondent Mid-Pacific's Central
Valley Project. Stipulation, paragraph 6. See Attachment to Joint
Exhibit 1 (Old Agreement at 2, 6). Those supervisory employees include
employees classified as Foreman II and III, who are "supervisors within the
meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute." Stipulation, paragraph 9.
Employees classified as Foreman II and III "had been included in the [mixed]
unit . . . from 1963 to on or about January 29, 1990. During this time (1963 -
January 29, 1990), [IBEW] Local 1245 negotiated the pay, pay practices, and
other conditions of employment of the [employees classified as Foreman II and
III]." Stipulation, paragraph 9. Since on or about January 29, 1990, and continuing to date, "at the
direction of" Respondent Reclamation, Respondent Mid-Pacific: (1) withdrew its
recognition of IBEW Local 1245 as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the supervisory employees classified as Foreman II and III,
"after giving notice of its intent to do so during negotiations on December 21,
1989"; (2) discontinued IBEW's dues withholdings of employees in Foreman II and
III positions; (3) placed employees in Foreman II and III positions on an
administrative pay scale pursuant to its request for Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) authority and subsequent OPM approval; and (4) ceased applying
the terms and conditions of IBEW's collective bargaining agreement with
Respondent Reclamation and Respondent Mid-Pacific to employees in Foreman II
and III positions. Stipulation, paragraphs 7-8. By letters dated February 14, 1990, and April 2, 1990, IBEW, through
its International President, requested that Respondent Reclamation continue its
existing practice of "collective bargaining in mixed units of employees at the
Bureau of Reclamation." Stipulation, paragraph 10. B. Case No. 39-CA-00697 Respondent Grand Coulee admits that CBTC "was recognized as the
exclusive representative of [the] mixed unit of [prevailing rate] supervisory .
. . and nonsupervisory employees for collective bargaining at [Respondent Grand
Coulee] in 1949." Case No. 39-CA-00697, Joint Exhibit 3. This "voluntary
recognition" served as the foundation of the collective bargaining relationship
between CBTC and Respondent Grand Coulee. See Stipulation, paragraph 6.
The parties stipulated that "[t]here has been no break in continuity of the
voluntary recognition or the continuity of labor agreements [between CBTC and
Respondent Grand Coulee]." See id. Those supervisory employees
included in the unit include employees classified as Foreman II and III who are
"supervisors within the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute." See
id., paragraph 9. "Since 1949, [CBTC] and the Respondents have
negotiated pay, pay practices, and other conditions of employment for employees
in the unit . . . and have executed successive collective bargaining agreements
containing the outcome of collective bargaining negotiations" which continued
the mixed unit status of the supervisory foremen in the unit. See
id. However, since on or about June 3, 1990 such negotiations have ended
with regard to [Foreman II] and [Foreman III.]" Stipulation, paragraph 9. Further, since on or about June 3, 1990, and continuing to date, "at
the direction of" Respondent Reclamation, Respondent Grand Coulee: (1) withdrew
its recognition of CBTC as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
of the supervisory employees classified as Foreman II and III "after giving
notice of its intent to do so at the onset of negotiations on April 30, 1990
and again, by letter of May 21, 1990"; (2) discontinued CBTC's dues
withholdings of employees in Foreman II and III positions; (3) placed employees
in Foreman II and III positions on an administrative pay scale pursuant to its
request for OPM authority and subsequent OPM approval; and (4) ceased applying
the terms and conditions of CBTC's collective bargaining agreement with
Respondent Reclamation and Respondent Grand Coulee to employees in Foreman II
and III positions in accordance with its May 21, 1990, letter and to unit
employees temporarily upgraded to Foreman II and III positions. Stipulation,
paragraphs 7-8. IV. Positions of the Parties A. General Counsel The General Counsel contends that the Authority "may reject the Tenth
Circuit's rule[,]" as set forth in WAPA v. FLRA, "in the instant case."
General Counsel's Brief at 6 (emphasis omitted). The General Counsel asserts
that the Authority should exercise "its 'discretion to determine whether to
adopt [a circuit court's] ruling in subsequent cases raising the same issue . .
. when, as here, those cases may be subject to review in other circuits.'"
Id. at 9 (quoting U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA 515, 523 (1990),
enforcement denied as to other matters, 941 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1991)
(alteration supplied by General Counsel)). The General Counsel contends that
the Authority should reject the Tenth Circuit's decision in WAPA v.
FLRA, and should "reaffirm its interpretation of section 704 [of the CSRA]
which [the Authority] has previously set forth" in WAPA 1, WAPA
2, WAPA 3, and WAPA 4. Id. at 6, 12. The General Counsel asserts that the Authority's decisions in WAPA
1, WAPA 2, WAPA 3, and WAPA 4 contain the proper
interpretation of the application of section 704 of the CSRA as it applies to
the foremen involved in these cases. Specifically, the General Counsel states
that "[t]he foremen at issue in the instant cases are prevailing rate employees
within the meaning of section 704" of the CSRA. Id. at 10 (emphasis
omitted). Further, the General Counsel states that while it is "undisputed that
the foremen at issue are supervisors within the meaning of [s]ection
7103(a)(10) of the Statute[,]" it is also "undisputed that exclusive
representatives representing these foremen had historically negotiated pay, pay
practices, and other conditions of employment as part of 'mixed units'."
Id. (footnote omitted). The General Counsel urges the Authority to allow
these foremen to continue as part of a mixed unit. Accordingly, the General Counsel requests the Authority to find that
the "Respondents' withdrawal of the section 704 rights of the foremen in the
instant cases is violative of the Statute." Id. at 11 (emphasis
omitted). Further, the General Counsel requests that the Authority find that by
directing Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee to engage in the
violative conduct, Respondent Reclamation violated the Statute. Finally, the
General Counsel requests that the Authority "issue an order, fully remedial of
all unlawful conduct." Id. at 13. B. Unions 1. IBEW and Local 1245 (4) IBEW states that the employees involved in Case No. 3-CA-00633 are
located "in the State of California, outside the geographic jurisdiction of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit." IBEW's Brief at 2. In this
regard, IBEW asserts that the issues presented in WAPA v. FLRA have not
been ruled on by any court other than the Tenth Circuit and contends that the
Tenth Circuit's decision in WAPA v. FLRA, "which presents no reasons
that had not already been presented by the [a]gency and rejected by the
Authority, is erroneous as a matter of law on several grounds[.]" Id. at
4. As an initial matter, IBEW claims that the court improperly failed to
give deference to the Authority's interpretation of section 704 of the CSRA "on
the fallacious ground that [s]ection 704 'is not part of the [Statute,]' but
'is set forth as a note to [s]ection 5343 of the [PRSA]' which . . . is under
the enforcement and interpretation purview" of OPM. Id. at 11 (citing
WAPA v. FLRA, 880 F.2d at 1166 & n.4). IBEW states that the Statute
is Title VII of the CSRA and includes section 704 of the CSRA. Further, IBEW contends that in WAPA v. FLRA the court
misinterpreted section 7135(a) of the Statute.(5) First, IBEW
claims that the court erroneously interpreted subsection (2) of section
7135(a). Second, IBEW claims that, although the court recognized that section
24 of Executive Order 11491--which contains language almost identical to
section 7135(a) of the Statute--was interpreted by the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Labor-Management Relations differently from the court's
interpretation of section 7135(a), the court ignored the fact that the
Assistant Secretary relied on section 24 of the Executive Order "in its
entirety, including [s]ection 24(1) which was identical, in material respects,
to [s]ection 7135(a)(1)" of the Statute. Id. at 13. IBEW asserts that,
in rejecting the Assistant Secretary's interpretation of what is now, in
essence, section 7135(a), the court failed to take into consideration the fact
that section 7135(a)(1) "provides an independent legal basis for the
preservation of historic mixed units." Id. Finally, IBEW contends that the court "commits its most grievous error"
in its interpretation of section 704 of the CSRA. Id. at 13 (citing
WAPA v. FLRA, 880 F.2d at 1168, 1170). IBEW asserts that the court erred
as a matter of law in holding that the rights set forth in section 704 are
"subject to the consent of the employer." Id. at 14. Accordingly, asserting that the Authority "has full discretion to
determine whether to follow" WAPA v. FLRA, IBEW requests that the
Authority "not acquiesce" to the Tenth Circuit's decision in WAPA v.
FLRA, but rather "adhere to its own previous decisions on the important
underlying issue presented by the instant case." Id. at 11, 15. IBEW
contends that the Authority should determine that Respondent Mid-Pacific and
Respondent Reclamation committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.
Further, as a remedy, IBEW requests that the Authority "provide the type of
relief granted by [the Authority] in [WAPA 3]." Id. at 16.
Additionally, IBEW requests "appropriate relief" to remedy Respondent
Reclamation's improper direction to Respondent Mid-Pacific to "engage in the
acts and conduct determined to be unlawful." Id. 2. CBTC CBTC argues that in enacting section 704 of the CSRA and section
7135(a)(1) of the Statute, Congress "preserved the right of supervisors covered
by section 9(b) of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act to [belong] to recognized
units and to renew labor contracts." CBTC's Brief at 3 (emphasis omitted).
Therefore, CBTC asserts that Respondent Reclamation and Respondent Grand Coulee
were "barred from unilaterally removing [the] foreman positions[, which are
within the scope of section 9(b),] from the unit." Id. (emphasis
omitted). CBTC states that the Tenth Circuit's decision in WAPA v. FLRA "is
inconsistent with the plain meaning of [s]ection 704 [of the CSRA] and should
not be followed." Id. at 13. CBTC contends that the court's decision in
WAPA v. FLRA, "[i]n the guise of interpreting the statute, . . .
destroyed the very rights the statute was designed to protect." Id. CBTC
argues that "[c]ontrary to the Tenth Circuit's reasoning, an agency has the
duty to bargain over employment terms with [s]ection 9(b) supervisors in mixed
units even though it is not obliged to carry forward any particular contract
provision." Id. at 16. Further, CBTC asserts that the Authority's
application of section 704 to the "mixed unit" issue in WAPA 3 "was
correct." Id. at 15. Finally, CBTC contends that section 7135(a)(1) of the Statute "was not
relied upon by the Authority in the WAPA litigation and was not
discussed by the Tenth Circuit." Id. at 21. According to CBTC, section
7135(a)(1) "provides an independent basis for ruling that the mixed unit is
lawful." Id. CBTC asserts that the Authority is "not required to defer to circuit
court authority in later cases raising the same legal issues" and urges the
Authority not to defer to the Tenth Circuit's view of the issues raised in Case
No. 39-CA-00697. Id. at 13. Further, CBTC notes that it was not a party
to the Tenth Circuit's decision in WAPA v. FLRA and that "the situs of
its dispute [is not] within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit."
Id. at 14. Accordingly, CBTC argues that it "should be permitted its
'day in court.'" Id. In conclusion, CBTC contends that Respondent Grand Coulee's and
Respondent Reclamation's unilateral withdrawal of recognition of the foremen
involved in Case No. 39-CA-00697 violates section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
Statute. CBTC requests that, in addition to the usual cease and desist orders,
the Authority specifically address the following two remedial issues: First, the [Respondent Reclamation] should be directed specifically to
remedy those actions summarized in paragraph 7(a)-(e) of the stipulation [in
Case No. 39-CA-00697]. Second, the Authority should order a retroactive remedy
as it did in [WAPA 3]. The retroactive date should extend to June 3,
1990, the effective date of [Respondent Grand Coulee's and Respondent
Reclamation's] unlawful action. Id. at 27. C. Respondents Relying on the Tenth Circuit's decision in WAPA v. FLRA and the
Authority's subsequent decisions in WAPA 5 and WAPA 6, the
Respondents contend that they did not commit the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaints in this consolidated case. The Respondents state that in WAPA v. FLRA, the Tenth Circuit
construed the Statute "as prohibiting the inclusion of supervisors in mixed
units" and section 9(b) of the PRSA and section 704 of the CSRA "as not
preserving mixed bargaining units." Respondents' Brief at 9 (emphasis omitted).
The Respondents contend that "[s]ince the facts of these consolidated cases are
similar to those in WAPA[ v. FLRA], . . . WAPA[ v. FLRA] is
dispositive of these cases." Id. at 14. The Respondents note that the
court held that, "at most, section 704 permits the recognition of supervisors
in mixed units only if the agency agrees." Id. The Respondents state
that "[h]ere, as in WAPA[ v. FLRA], Respondents elected not to agree to
continue to bargain with supervisors in mixed units and so advised the [IBEW
Local 1245 and CBTC] at the outset of negotiations." Id. (footnote
omitted). The Respondents argue that "since Respondents clearly exercised their
right [not to] agree to the continuation of mixed bargaining units by notifying
the [IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC], respectively, at the outset of renegotiations
of their respective collective bargaining agreements, Respondents cannot be
found guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain with mixed
units of supervisory and nonsupervisory employees." Id. at 15 (citing
WAPA v. FLRA, 880 F.2d at 1172). Further, the Respondents assert that in WAPA 5 and WAPA
6, the Authority concluded that, consistent with WAPA v. FLRA, the
bargaining unit involved in those cases did "not include supervisory employees
because [WAPA] refused to recognize them in the unit." Id. Accordingly,
the Respondents state that in WAPA 5 and WAPA 6 the Authority
found that "the agency had no duty to bargain with the [IBEW Local 1245 and
CBTC] on behalf of such employees on pay or conditions of employment."
Id. at 15-16. The Respondent contends that "the same decision must be
reached in these cases because the facts and principles of law are similar."
Id. at 16. Accordingly, the Respondents claim that because they elected
not to recognize the supervisors, they had "no obligation to bargain with the
[IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC] on behalf of the [employees in Foreman II and III
positions] once Respondents exercised their elective right [not to] agree to
mixed bargaining units when the agreements came up for renewal or
renegotiations." Id. In conclusion, the Respondents request that the unfair labor practice
complaints in this consolidated case be dismissed. V. Analysis and Conclusions Resolution of this case requires us to consider section 9(b) of the
PRSA, section 704 of the CSRA, and the Statute. Upon consideration of these
statutory provisions and the entire record in this case, we conclude that the
Respondent Reclamation violated the Statute as alleged in the complaints in
Case No. 3-CA-00633 and Case No. 39-CA-00697. The other allegations of the
complaints will be dismissed. A. Section 9(b) of the PRSA In enacting section 9(b) of the PRSA, Congress intended to preserve the
scope and substance of collective bargaining agreements between representatives
of certain prevailing rate employees and Federal agencies entered into by the
parties that were in effect on the date of the enactment of the PRSA. In
addressing the intended effect of section 9(b), the House report stated
that: Section 9(b) . . . provides that amendments made by the [PRSA] shall
not be construed to affect the provisions of an existing contract which
resulted from negotiations between agencies and employee organizations. This
amendment strengthens the language of section 9(b) of the introduced bill and
adds two new paragraphs. The new paragraph (2) provides that the provisions of
the contracts which were in effect on the date of enactment of the Act may be
renewed, extended, modified or improved through negotiation after the enactment
date of this Act. The new paragraph (3) provides that the Act shall not affect
any existing agreement between agencies and employee organizations regarding
the various items which are negotiable, nor shall the Act preclude the
inclusion of new items in connection with the renegotiation of any
contract. H.R. Rep. No. 339, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1971). The report further
stated: The provisions of section 9(b) are directed at those groups of Federal
employees whose wages and other terms or benefits of employment are fixed in
accordance with contracts resulting from the negotiations between their
agencies and employee organizations. . . . It is not this committee's intent to
affect, in any way, the status of such contracts or to impair the authority of
the parties concerned to renegotiate existing contracts or enter into new
agreements. Id. at 22. Additionally, the Senate report stated as follows:
"Section 9(b) is a savings clause to prevent the disruption or modification of
existing wage board bargaining agreements now in effect." S. Rep. No. 791, 92d
Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1972). B. Section 704 of the CSRA Section 704 of the CSRA establishes certain bargaining rights for
prevailing rate employees "to whom section 9(b) of Public Law 92-392 applies."
Section 704 provides, in relevant part, that the terms and conditions of
employment and other employment benefits of these prevailing rate employees
that were the subject of negotiation in accordance with prevailing rates and
practices prior to August 19, 1972, shall be negotiated after the enactment of
the CSRA without regard to the provisions of the Statute.(6) The terms of sections 704 and 9(b), supported by the
legislative history of those provisions, authorize parties who had negotiated
over a subject matter prior to August 19, 1972, to continue existing
contractual terms concerning that subject matter or to modify or improve them
when negotiating a new agreement, without regard to any restrictions contained
in the Statute. Columbia Power Trades Council and United States Department
of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, 22 FLRA 998 (1986)
(Bonneville Power Administration). See National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 341 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Wapato Irrigation Project, Wapato, Washington, 39 FLRA
1272, 1273, reconsideration as to other matters denied, 40 FLRA 1009
(1991). See also United States Information Agency, Voice of
America v. FLRA, 895 F.2d 1449, 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In particular, the legislative history of section 704 demonstrates that
Congress intended to preserve certain collective bargaining relationships that
had developed over many years and were protected under section 9(b) of the
PRSA. The House Report stated that: [Section 704] is intended to preserve the existing right of certain
Federal prevailing rate employees to negotiate terms and conditions of
employment. The committee intends that this subsection preserve unchanged the
scope and substance of the existing collective bargaining relationship between
the employees' representatives and the agencies involved. The subsection
excludes these employees from the restrictions on the scope of collective
bargaining under chapter 71, and grants them authority to negotiate pay and pay
practices without regard to any provisions of chapters 51, 53, and 55 of title
5, or other provisions relating to rates of pay or pay practices with respect
to Federal employees. H.R. Rep. No. 1403, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 61-62 (1978), reprinted
Statute, Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Comm. Print
1979), at 675, 707-08 (Legislative History). The Conference Committee, in adopting an amended version of the House
provision of section 704, stated that: [Section 704] provides specific statutory authorization for the
negotiation of wages, terms and conditions of employment and other employment
benefits traditionally negotiated by these employees in accordance with
prevailing practices in the private sector of the economy. [Section 704]
authorizes and requires agencies to negotiate on any terms and conditions of
employment which were the subject of negotiations prior to August 19, 1972, the
date of enactment of Public Law 92-392 [the PSRA]. [Section 704(a)] may not be
construed to nullify, curtail, or otherwise impair the right or duty of any
party to negotiate for the renewal, extension, modification, or improvements of
benefits negotiated. Conf. Rep. No. 1717, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 159 (1978) (also printed as S.
Rep. No. 95-1272, dated Oct. 4, 1978), reprinted in Legislative
History at 793, 827. C. The Application of Section 9(b) of the PSRA and Section 704 of
the CSRA to this Case By enacting section 9(b) and section 704, Congress intended to
authorize and require affected agencies that had negotiated, in accordance with
prevailing practices, terms and conditions of employment and other employment
benefits prior to August 19, 1972, to continue to negotiate with the exclusive
representatives of their employees on those matters. See
Mid-Pacific, 43 FLRA at 1156-57. Section 9(b) and section 704 gave
agencies and unions specific authorization to modify or improve previously
agreed upon matters when negotiating a new agreement, without regard to any
restrictions contained in the Statute. See id. As pointed out
above, the legislative history of section 9(b) indicates that Congress intended
neither "to affect, in any way, the status of . . . contracts [affecting these
units,] . . . to impair the authority of the parties concerned to renegotiate
existing contracts or enter into new agreements[,]" nor to "disrupt[ ] or
modif[y] . . . existing wage board agreements" which were in effect prior to
the enactment of the PRSA. H.R. Rep. No. 339, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 22; S. Rep.
No. 791, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 6. In our view, the wording of the savings clauses enacted by Congress was
broad and included matters relating to employees' unit status, and benefits
derived from that unit status, before section 9(b) of the PRSA was enacted. We
conclude that Congress intended section 9(b) to include all matters that had
been negotiated prior to August 19, 1972, rather than to restrict bargaining by
excluding from the scope of the obligation to bargain some matters that had
been negotiated previously. Stated otherwise, Congress' use of the phrase
"terms and conditions of employment and other employment benefits" was simply a
way of describing all matters that parties had negotiated, and was not a
limitation designed to exclude some matters from negotiation. Further, inasmuch as section 704(a) merely carries forward section
9(b), without mandating the exclusion of provisions of the contract or
employment benefits that relate to unit status, there is no basis on which to
conclude that Congress intended to preclude negotiations over previously
negotiated benefits associated with the composition of the bargaining unit. As
emphasized above, the pertinent legislative history indicates that section 704
was intended to "preserve unchanged the scope and substance of the existing
collective bargaining relationship between [certain prevailing rate] employees'
representatives and the agencies involved" that had developed historically
under section 9(b) and to not only exclude these employees from generally
applicable wage-fixing policies, but also to "exclude[ ] these employees from
the restrictions on the scope of collective bargaining under [the Statute.]"
Legislative History at 707-08. Additionally, the pertinent legislative
history demonstrates that Congress considered the affected parties' mutual
rights and obligations in this regard to be mandatory and so specified by
stating that section 704 "authorizes and requires agencies to negotiate on any
terms and conditions of employment that were the subject of negotiations prior
to August 19, 1972[.]" Id. at 827. In our view, nothing in the plain wording or the legislative history of
section 9(b) and section 704 demonstrates that Congress made a distinction
among subject matters preserved for negotiation under these sections when the
conditions for negotiations are met. Thus, noting particularly Congress' use of
the phrase "other employment benefits" in section 704, we conclude that
Congress did not intend to exclude a matter from negotiations simply because it
concerned a subject that was not a traditional subject of private sector
negotiations under the National Labor Relations Act or Federal sector
negotiations under the Statute. Additionally, we find no basis in section 9(b)
and section 704 for concluding that some subjects preserved for negotiation may
be negotiated only if the agency involved consents to such negotiations. In
other words, there is no basis to conclude that traditional subjects of
negotiation were to be considered mandatory, while nontraditional subjects of
negotiation, such as the composition of the bargaining unit, were to be
considered permissive. Rather, by enacting section 9(b) and section 704,
Congress sought to require agencies to which those provisions applied to
negotiate on request on any matters that were the subject of negotiations prior
to August 19, 1972. Therefore, we conclude that any subjects preserved for
negotiation under section 9(b) and section 704 are mandatory subjects of
bargaining. D. Duty to Bargain It is undisputed that employees in Foreman II and III positions
involved in this consolidated case are prevailing rate employees covered by
section 9(b) of the PRSA and section 704 of the CSRA. It is also undisputed
that employees in Foreman II and III positions are supervisors within the
meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute. Moreover, the parties'
collective bargaining history demonstrates that employees in Foreman II and III
positions were included by agreement of the parties in units of prevailing rate
employees represented by IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC prior to August 19, 1972.
Further, it is undisputed that IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC negotiated the pay, pay
practices, and other conditions of employment of employees in Foreman II and
III positions prior to August 19, 1972. It is also undisputed in this case that since 1949 and 1963 CBTC and
IBEW, respectively, have represented units of Respondents' employees that
included the Foreman II and III positions. Therefore, based on the record
before us in this consolidated case, we find that the parties in this case
historically negotiated and agreed to the composition of the units at issue in
this case. In addition, since those dates, CBTC and IBEW have represented
employees in the Foreman II and III positions in negotiations with the
Respondents over those employees' "pay, pay practices, and other conditions of
employment[.]" Stipulations, paragraph 9. In our view, consistent with our
discussion above concerning section 9(b) of the PRSA and section 704 of the
CSRA, if the inclusion of employees in Foreman II and III positions in those
units was a subject of negotiation between the parties before August 19, 1972,
Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee were obligated to bargain
with IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC, respectively, concerning that matter,
notwithstanding the fact that inclusion of employees in Foreman II and III
positions in those units would conflict with section 7112 of the Statute. Based on the stipulations in this case, we find that the inclusion of
employees in Foreman II and III positions in the respective IBEW Local 1245 and
CBTC bargaining units was a subject of negotiation between the parties prior to
August 19, 1972. Further, we find that the inclusion of those employees in
those units concerns a term and condition of employment or other employment
benefit of the employees within the meaning of section 9(b) of the PRSA and
section 704 of the CSRA. We find, therefore, that, under section 9(b) of the
PRSA and section 704 of the CSRA, the inclusion of employees in Foreman II and
III positions in the respective bargaining units is a mandatory subject of
bargaining. Consequently, we conclude that Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent
Grand Coulee were obligated to bargain with IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC,
respectively, over the substance of the decision to remove employees in Foreman
II and III positions from their respective bargaining units, notwithstanding
the fact that mixed units are precluded under sections 7105(a)(2)(A) and 7112
of the Statute. See, for example, Bonneville Power
Administration, 22 FLRA at 1006 (the agency was required to negotiate on
provisions that pertained to terms and conditions of employment of unit
employees within the meaning of section 704 which were subject to negotiations
between the agency and union prior to August 19, 1972, notwithstanding their
possible conflict with the Statute). See also U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1759, 42 FLRA 902, 916-18 (1991),
reconsideration denied, 43 FLRA 314 (1991). E. WAPA v. FLRA The Respondents contend that its exclusion of employees in Foreman II
and III positions from the units at issue in this case is warranted under the
court's decision in WAPA v. FLRA. It is not clear to us that the court's
decision in WAPA v. FLRA either must or should be read to permit the
unilateral exclusion of the Foreman II and III positions from the units at
issue in the circumstances of the consolidated case before us. In any event, to
the extent that the decision in WAPA v. FLRA holds that section 704 of
the CSRA does not permit negotiations over the continuation of mixed units
under any circumstances or that such negotiations may occur only if consented
to by an agency, we respectfully disagree for the reasons stated above. As
demonstrated in our discussion of the intent of Congress in enacting section
9(b) of the PRSA and section 704 of the CSRA, Congress intended to require
agencies to bargain on request on matters that were the subject of negotiation
before August 19, 1972. Moreover, by its terms, section 704 applies regardless
of any inconsistency with the Statute. Accordingly, we respectfully disagree
with the court's determination in WAPA v. FLRA that section 704 of the
CSRA does not constitute an exception to section 7112 of the Statute. F. Violations of the Statute Because the Respondents had bargained on and agreed to the inclusion of
employees in Foreman II and III positions in the units represented by IBEW
Local 1245 and CBTC prior to August 19, 1972, the inclusion of those employees
in those units was a mandatory subject of bargaining under section 704 and the
Respondents were obligated to bargain on any decision to exclude those
employees from the respective units. See, for example, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Missouri Basin Region and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1759, 42 FLRA 820,
831 (1991) (an agency was not justified in unilaterally terminating a
provision, which was established in accordance with section 704, in the
parties' existing agreement before it completed bargaining over the subject
matter of the provision as required under the parties' collective bargaining
agreement), reconsideration denied, 43 FLRA 380 (1991), petition for
review filed, No. 92-9503 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 1992). Consequently, the
Respondents were precluded from unilaterally withdrawing their agreed-upon
recognition of the Unions as the exclusive representative of employees in
Foreman II and III positions. Moreover, we note that the Respondents also had negotiated on and
agreed to the terms and conditions of employment and other employment benefits
of those employees in Foreman II and III positions in the respective bargaining
units. Specifically, we note that from 1963 (with respect to Respondent
Mid-Pacific and IBEW Local 1245) and from 1949 (with respect to Respondent
Grand Coulee and CBTC) until the Respondents' unilateral withdrawal of
recognition from the Unions as the exclusive representatives of employees in
Foreman II and III positions, the Unions negotiated collective bargaining
agreements with the Respondents establishing the terms and conditions of
employment, including pay and pay practices, of employees in the Foreman II and
III positions in their respective mixed units. Just as the Respondents could
not unilaterally terminate their recognition of the Unions as the exclusive
representatives of employees in Foreman II and III positions in their
respective units in the circumstances of these cases, the Respondents also
could not unilaterally terminate, under these circumstances, the application of
the parties' collective bargaining agreements to employees in Foreman II and
III positions. We find, therefore, that in these cicumstances, Respondent Mid-Pacific
and Respondent Grand Coulee had an obligation to: (1) continue their
recognition of IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC, respectively, as the exclusive
bargaining representatives of employees in Foreman II and III positions in
their units of exclusive recognition; (2) apply the parties' respective
collective bargaining agreements to employees in those positions; and (3) pay
employees in those positions under the pay scale that had been negotiated for
those positions under the parties' respective collective bargaining agreements.
Further, we find, with respect to Respondent Grand Coulee, that it had an
obligation to continue to apply the parties' collective bargaining agreement to
employees temporarily upgraded to the positions of Foreman II and III. However, Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee
unilaterally withdrew their recognition of the Unions as the exclusive
representatives of employees in Foreman II and III positions and unilaterally
terminated the application of the parties' collective bargaining agreements,
including the wage provisions, to employees in those positions. We find that
Respondent Mid-Pacific's and Respondent Grand Coulee's unilateral withdrawal of
recognition from IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC as the exclusive representatives of
employees in Foreman II and III positions, and the accompanying refusal to
apply the parties' collective bargaining agreements to those employees,
constituted a repudiation of the parties' respective collective bargaining
agreements and violates the good-faith bargaining obligation under section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. See Department of Defense, Warner
Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 40 FLRA 1211,
1218-20 (1991) ("Where the nature and scope of the breach [of an agreement]
Statute."); United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. and
United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, Little
Rock, Arkansas, 24 FLRA 682, 686 (1986) (FHA, Little Rock) (the
repudiation of a provision of the parties' agreement was inconsistent with the
activity's good-faith bargaining obligation in violation of the Statute). Specifically, we find that Respondent Mid-Pacific's and Respondent
Grand Coulee's unilateral withdrawal of recognition from the Unions as the
exclusive representatives of employees in Foreman II and III positions
constituted a total repudiation of the Respondents' obligations to employees in
Consequently, we conclude that the Respondents' conduct in this regard amounts
to a complete rejection of the statutory requirement to bargain in good faith.
The nature and scope of the Respondent Mid-Pacific's and Respondent Grand
Coulee's refusal went to the heart of the agreement and the collective
bargaining relationship itself and, therefore, amounted to a repudiation of the
obligation imposed by the terms of the parties' respective agreements in
violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. See
Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, Grand Coulee
Project, Grand Coulee, Washington, 9 FLRA 385 (1982) (Grand Coulee
Project). Further, we find that Respondent Mid-Pacific's and Respondent Grand
Coulee's unilateral discontinuance of dues withholding for employees in Foreman
II and III positions in their respective units constituted a refusal to comply
with section 7115(a) of the Statute, in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8)
of the Statute. See, for example, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, U.S. Mint, 35 FLRA 1095 (1990) (U.S. Mint) (respondent's
failure to comply with the requirements of section 7115(a) to honor the
assignments from employees in an appropriate unit and to make appropriate
allotments pursuant to the assignments violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of
the Statute). In light of our findings, we need not address CBTC's contention that
section 7135(a)(1) of the Statute "provides an independent basis for ruling
that the mixed unit is lawful." See CBTC's Brief at 21. G. Responsibility for Violations of the Statute The parties stipulated that Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand
Coulee engaged in the above-described conduct at the direction of Respondent
Reclamation. When management at a higher level in an agency directs or requires
management at a subordinate level of exclusive recognition to act in a manner
that is inconsistent with the subordinate level's bargaining obligations under
the Statute, the higher-level management entity violates section 7116(a)(1) and
(5) of the Statute. See, for example, FHA, Little Rock, 24
FLRA at 686; Grand Coulee Project. Accordingly, because Respondent Reclamation directed Respondent
Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee to engage in conduct that violated
their obligation to bargain with the Unions as the exclusive representatives of
employees in Foreman II and III positions, we find that Respondent Reclamation
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by interfering with the
bargaining relationship of the parties at the level of exclusive recognition.
We further conclude that in directing Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent
Grand Coulee to discontinue the dues withholding of employees in Foreman II and
III positions, Respondent Reclamation committed a violation of section
7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute. Moreover, because it is undisputed that the decision to engage in the
above-described conduct was based on directions received from Respondent
Reclamation, we find that Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee
were acting in a ministerial capacity and without discretion when they engaged
in the above-described conduct. Consequently, we conclude that Respondent
Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee did not commit the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaints. See, for example, Ogden
Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 39 FLRA 1381, 1392 (1991);
FHA, Little Rock; 24 FLRA at 686-87. Consequently, we will dismiss the
complaints as to Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee. VI. Remedy The General Counsel, Charging Parties, and the Intervenor have
requested that we issue an order that fully remedies all unlawful conduct. In
addition, CBTC has requested that the order be retroactive to the effective
date of the unlawful action. We interpret CBTC's request as a request that we
return the parties to the status quo at the time of the
Respondents' unlawful action. Where management changes a condition of employment without fulfilling
its obligation to bargain over the change, the Authority grants a status
quo ante remedy in the absence of special circumstances.
See, for example, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 41 FLRA 272, 279 (1991); U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C., 38 FLRA 899, 913 (1990). See also
National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 910 F.2d 964, 969 (D.C. Cir.
1990). We note that no special circumstances are alleged in this case and none
are apparent to us. Accordingly, we find that a return to the status
quo ante is appropriate to remedy the Respondents' unfair labor
practices. Consequently, we will order Respondent Reclamation to direct Respondent
Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee to restore their recognition of IBEW
Local 1245 and CBTC, respectively, as the exclusive representatives of units
that include employees in Foreman II and III positions, and to apply the
parties' collective bargaining agreements, including the wage and benefits
provisions, to employees in those positions. The respective collective
bargaining agreements shall be applied retroactively to the effective date of
the Respondents' unlawful change in conditions of employment. If the parties
have enacted a new agreement with respect to the bargaining unit, the
Respondents will apply the terms of the new agreement as of its effective
date. Moreover, from the time that the Respondents withdrew employees in
Foreman II and III positions from the coverage of the parties' collective
bargaining agreements, employees in those positions were deprived of access to
the negotiated grievance procedure. Consequently, the Respondents should
retroactively waive the time limits for filing grievances under their
collective bargaining agreement to allow employees in Foreman II and III
positions to grieve matters that they would otherwise have been able to grieve
had they been covered by the agreement. See Panama Canal Commission,
Balboa, Republic of Panama, 43 FLRA 1483 (1992), request for
reconsideration denied, 45 FLRA No. 109. Further, where, during this period, the parties bargained on and agreed
to new terms and conditions of employment for employees in the Unions'
respective units that would otherwise have applied to employees in Foreman II
and III positions, the Respondents shall apply those terms and conditions to
employees who were in those positions, including affording them the right to
grieve those matters. To the extent that additional bargaining is required to
determine how those terms and conditions of employment should be applied to
employees in Foreman II and III positions--for example, the appropriate wage
increment for employees in those positions in relation to the wage rates for
other unit employees--or to address other matters relevant to Foreman II and
III positions, the Respondents must bargain with the Unions and apply any
agreements reached retroactively to the date of the new agreement covering the
bargaining unit. We will also order Respondent Reclamation to direct Respondent
Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee to reinstate dues withholdings for
employees in Foreman II and III positions. Under section 7115(a), once an
employee is included in a bargaining unit, an agency is obligated to honor a
dues assignment from that employee and make an appropriate allotment. The
stipulation in this case states that Respondent Mid-Pacific and Respondent
Grand Coulee, at the direction of Respondent Reclamation, refused to honor such
assignments from employees in Foreman II and III positions or to make any
appropriate allotments to IBEW Local 1245 and CBTC, respectively. We find that,
in the circumstances of this consolidated case, the Unions are entitled to
moneys that should have been withheld from employees had dues withholding been
in force. Accordingly, we conclude that a remedy ordering reimbursement to the
Unions for the dues that they would have received if Respondent Mid-Pacific and
Respondent Grand Coulee had not unlawfully discontinued the dues withholding of
employees in Foremen II and III positions in the Unions' respective units is
authorized under the Statute. See U.S. Mint, 35 FLRA at 1100
("The remedy for failing to comply with section 7115(a) properly includes a
requirement that an agency reimburse a union for the dues it would have
received but did not as a result of the unlawful conduct."). Finally, we conclude that backpay is an appropriate remedy to make
whole any employee who suffered a withdrawal or reduction in pay, allowances,
or differentials as a result of the Respondents' unlawful actions. In U.S.
37 FLRA 278 (1990) (DHHS, SSA), we set forth an approach for determining
when, in addition to a status quo ante award, backpay
would be appropriate in "cases involving changes in conditions of employment
resulting from unlawful refusals to bargain, regardless of whether the
status quo ante award stems from a refusal to bargain over
[the substance of] a decision or from an analysis conducted under Federal
Correctional [Institution, 8 FLRA 604 (1982)] concerning a failure to
engage in impact and implementation bargaining." DHHS, SSA, 37 FLRA at
291. We stated that in such cases, if we determine that "the agency's actions
resulted in a withdrawal or reduction in pay, allowances or differentials of
identifiable employees, we will then order the agency to make such employees
whole for that withdrawal or reduction." Id. at 292. We further stated
that we would "leave to the compliance stage any questions as to the actual
amount to be paid." Id. (footnote omitted). We conclude that the Respondents' refusal to apply the terms and
conditions of the Unions' collective bargaining agreements with the Respondents
to the employees in Foreman II and Foreman III positions resulted in a
withdrawal or reduction in pay, allowances, or differentials which the
employees in Foreman II and Foreman III positions had been receiving prior to
the change. For example, the record shows that after the Respondents withdrew
employees in Foreman II and III positions from coverage under the pay
provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreements, the Respondents
paid those employees under an administrative pay scale which was subject to
premium pay and pay increase limitations not previously applicable to employees
in Foreman II and III positions. See Case No. 3-CA-00633, Joint Exhibit
No. 6; Case No. 39-CA-00697, Joint Exhibit No. 7. Therefore, the causal nexus
required by the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, has been established.
See DHHS, SSA, 37 FLRA at 289-90. Accordingly, we will order Respondent Reclamation to direct Respondent
Mid-Pacific and Respondent Grand Coulee to return to the status
quo ante and to make employees in the Foreman II and Foreman III
positions whole for any withdrawal or reduction in pay, allowances, or
differentials as a result of the Respondents' unlawful actions. Specifically,
Respondents shall pay employees in Foreman II and III positions who were in
those positions during the period of the repudiation the difference between
what they were paid under the administrative pay scale and what they would
otherwise have been paid under the collective bargaining agreements applicable
to those employees. The amount of the backpay owed each employee will be a
matter for compliance. DHHS, SSA, 37 FLRA at 291-93. VII. Order A. Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.
shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with the bargaining relationship of the Bureau of
Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, California (Mid-Pacific)
and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1245 at
the level of exclusive recognition by directing Mid-Pacific to: (1) withdraw
its recognition of IBEW Local 1245 as the exclusive bargaining representative
of employees in the Local's mixed unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory
employees classified as Working Foreman and Foreman (Foreman II and III) and
thereby fail to bargain in good faith with IBEW Local 1245; (2) refuse to
comply with section 7115(a) of the Statute by discontinuing dues withholding
for these foremen; (3) place the foremen on an administrative pay scale; and
(4) not comply with the terms and conditions of IBEW's collective bargaining
agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Washington, D.C. and Mid-Pacific in repudiation of its agreement with IBEW as
it relates to the Foreman II and III. (b) Interfering with the bargaining relationship of Mid-Pacific and
IBEW Local 1245 at the level of exclusive recognition by directing Mid-Pacific
to refuse to recognize employees in Foreman II and III positions as being
included in an appropriate mixed bargaining unit of supervisory and
nonsupervisory prevailing rate employees. (c) Directing Mid-Pacific to refuse to comply with the provisions of
section 7115(a) of the Statute by refusing to honor valid written dues
assignments from bargaining unit employees in Foreman II and III positions for
the payment of regular and periodic dues to IBEW Local 1245 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees in the Local's mixed unit of supervisory
and nonsupervisory employees. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
purposes and policies of the Statute: (a) Inform Mid-Pacific and IBEW Local 1245, in writing, that
Mid-Pacific shall reinstate its recognition of IBEW Local 1245 as the exclusive
and nonsupervisory employees classified as Foreman II and III and apply the
parties' collective bargaining agreement, including wage and benefit
provisions, to the employees in those positions. The collective bargaining
agreement shall be applied retroactively to the effective date of the
Mid-Pacific's unlawful change in conditions of employment. If the parties have
enacted a new agreement with respect to the bargaining unit, Mid-Pacific will
apply the terms of the new agreement as of its effective date. (b) Direct Mid-Pacific to recognize employees in Foreman II and III
positions as being included in an appropriate mixed bargaining unit of
supervisory and nonsupervisory prevailing rate employees represented by IBEW
Local 1245, their exclusive bargaining representative. (c) Direct Mid-Pacific to reinstate, retroactive to the date of
Mid-Pacific's unlawful change in conditions of employment, the right of
employees in Foreman II and III positions to appeal adverse actions through the
administrative appeals procedures as required by its collective bargaining
agreement with IBEW Local 1245. Mid-Pacific shall be directed to waive the time
limits for filing grievances under the parties' agreement to allow employees in
Foreman II and III positions to grieve matters that they would otherwise have
been able to grieve had they been covered by the agreement. (d) In accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, direct
Mid-Pacific to make whole affected employees in the Foreman II and III
positions for any withdrawal or reduction in pay, allowances, or differentials
that resulted from Mid-Pacific's repudiation of its collective bargaining
agreement with IBEW Local 1245 with respect to employees in Foreman II and III
positions. The employees who were in the Foreman II and III positions during
the period of repudiation shall be paid the difference between what they were
paid under the administrative pay scale and what they would otherwise have been
paid under the collective bargaining agreement between Mid-Pacific and IBEW
Local 1245 applicable to the affected employees. (e) Direct Mid-Pacific to reimburse the exclusive representative, IBEW
Local 1245, an amount equal to the regular and periodic dues it would have
received, but did not, from unit employees in Foreman II and III positions who
had their dues withholdings unlawfully discontinued as a result of the unlawful
refusal to honor the employees' valid written dues assignment for such
purposes. (f) Direct Mid-Pacific to deduct, commencing with the first pay period
after the date of this Order, regular and periodic dues from the pay of: (1)
bargaining unit employees in Foreman II and III positions who had their dues
assignments unlawfully discontinued; and (2) any other unit employee in Foreman
II and III positions who may in the future complete a valid written dues
assignment for such purpose and make an appropriate allotment of such dues to
the exclusive representative, IBEW Local 1245. (g) Post at its facilities at Mid-Pacific, where bargaining unit
employees represented IBEW Local 1245 are located, copies of the attached
Notice A on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Director, Bureau of
Reclamation, and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
by any other material. (h) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply. B. Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, the
Reclamation, Grand Coulee Project Office, Grand Coulee, Washington (Grand
Coulee) and the Columbia Basin Trades Council, AFL-CIO (CBTC), at the level of
exclusive recognition by directing Grand Coulee to: (1) withdraw its
recognition of CBTC as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in
CBTC's mixed unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory employees classified as
Working Foreman and Foreman (Foreman II and III) and thereby fail to bargain in
good faith with CBTC; (2) refuse to comply with section 7115(a) of the Statute
by discontinuing dues withholding for these foremen; (3) place the foremen on
an administrative pay scale; and (4) not comply with the terms and conditions
of CBTC's collective bargaining agreement with the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C. and Grand Coulee in
repudiation of its agreement with CBTC as it relates to Foreman II and III.
(b) Interfering with the bargaining relationship of Grand Coulee and
CBTC at the level of exclusive recognition by directing Grand Coulee to refuse
to recognize employees in Foreman II and III positions as being included in an
appropriate mixed bargaining unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory prevailing
rate employees. (c) Directing Grand Coulee to refuse to comply with the provisions of
the payment of regular and periodic dues to CBTC as the exclusive bargaining
representative of employees in the CBTC's mixed unit of supervisory and
nonsupervisory employees. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
purposes and policies of the Statute: (a) Inform Grand Coulee and CBTC, in writing, that Grand Coulee shall
reinstate its recognition of CBTC as the exclusive bargaining representative of
employees in CBTC's mixed unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory employees
classified as Foreman II and III and apply the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, including wage and benefit provisions, to the employees in those
positions. The collective bargaining agreement shall be applied retroactively
to the effective date of the Grand Coulee's unlawful change in conditions of
employment. If the parties have enacted a new agreement with respect to the
bargaining unit, Grand Coulee will apply the terms of the new agreement as of
its effective date. (b) Direct Grand Coulee to recognize employees in Foreman II and III
supervisory and nonsupervisory prevailing rate employees represented by CBTC,
their exclusive bargaining representative. (c) Direct Grand Coulee to reinstate, retroactive to the date of Grand
Coulee's unlawful change in conditions of employment, the right of employees in
Foreman II and III positions to appeal adverse actions through the
agreement with CBTC. Grand Coulee shall be directed to waive the time limits
for filing grievances under the parties' agreement to allow employees in
Grand Coulee to make whole affected employees in the Foreman II and III
as a result of Grand Coulee's total repudiation of its collective bargaining
agreement with CBTC. The employees who were in the Foreman II and III positions
during the period of repudiation shall be paid the difference between what they
were paid under the administrative pay scale and what they would otherwise have
been paid under the collective bargaining agreement between Grand Coulee and
CBTC applicable to the affected employees. (e) Direct Grand Coulee to reimburse the exclusive representative,
CBTC, in an amount equal to the regular and periodic dues it would have
purposes. (f) Direct Grand Coulee to deduct, commencing with the first pay period
assignments unlawfully discontinued; and (2) any other uni employee in Foreman
the exclusive representative, CBTC. (g) Post at its facilities at Grand Coulee, where bargaining unit
employees represented CBTC are located, copies of the attached Notice B on
such forms, they shall be signed by the Director, Bureau of Reclamation, and
material. (h) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply. C. It is further ordered that the complaints in this consolidated case
against the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento,
California and the Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Coulee Project Office, Grand
Coulee, Washington be dismissed. NOTICE A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL NOT interfere with the bargaining relationship of the Bureau of
it relates to the Foreman II and III. WE WILL NOT interfere with the bargaining relationship of Mid-Pacific
and IBEW Local 1245 at the level of exclusive recognition by directing
Mid-Pacific to refuse to recognize employees in Foreman II and III positions as
being included in an appropriate mixed bargaining unit of supervisory and
nonsupervisory prevailing rate employees. WE WILL NOT direct Mid-Pacific to refuse to comply with the provisions
of section 7115(a) of the Statute by refusing to honor valid written dues
and nonsupervisory employees. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL inform Mid-Pacific and IBEW Local 1245, in writing, that
agreement shall be applied retroactively to the effective date of Mid-Pacific's
unlawful change in conditions of employment. If the parties have enacted a new
agreement with respect to the bargaining unit, Mid-Pacific will apply the terms
of the new agreement as of its effective date. WE WILL direct Mid-Pacific to recognize employees in Foreman II and III
Local 1245, their exclusive bargaining representative. WE WILL direct Mid-Pacific to reinstate, retroactive to the date of
agreement with IBEW Local 1245. We will direct Mid-Pacific to waive the time
been able to grieve had they been covered by the agreement. WE WILL, in accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596,
direct Mid-Pacific to make whole affected employees in the Foreman II and III
Local 1245. WE WILL direct Mid-Pacific to reimburse the exclusive representative,
IBEW Local 1245, an amount equal to the regular and periodic dues it would have
had their dues withholdings unlawfully discontinued as a result of the unlawful refusal to honor the employees' valid written
dues assignment for such purposes. WE WILL direct Mid-Pacific to deduct, commencing with the first pay
period after the date of this Order, regular and periodic dues from the pay of:
(1) bargaining unit employees in Foreman II and III positions who had their
dues assignments unlawfully discontinued; and (2) any other unit employee in
Foreman II and III positions who may in the future complete a valid written
dues assignment for such purpose and make an appropriate allotment of such dues
to the exclusive representative, IBEW Local 1245. ________________________________(Agency) Dated:____________ By:______________________________ (Signature) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
Washington, D.C. Regional Office, San Francisco Regional Office, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, whose address is: 1111 18th Street, N.W., 7th Floor, P.O.
Box 33758, Washington, D.C. 20033-0758 and whose telephone number is: (202)
653-8500. NOTICE B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL NOT interfere with the bargaining relationship of the Bureau of
repudiation of its agreement with CBTC as it relates to the Foreman II and
III. WE WILL NOT interfere with the bargaining relationship of Grand Coulee
and CBTC at the level of exclusive recognition by directing Grand Coulee to
refuse to recognize employees in Foreman II and III positions as being included
in an appropriate mixed bargaining unit of supervisory and nonsupervisory
prevailing rate employees. WE WILL NOT direct Grand Coulee to refuse to comply with the provisions
nonsupervisory employees. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL inform Grand Coulee and CBTC, in writing, that Grand Coulee
shall reinstate its recognition of CBTC as the exclusive bargaining
representative of employees in CBTC's mixed unit of supervisory and
nonsupervisory employees classified as Foreman II and III and apply the
agreement shall be applied retroactively to the effective date of Grand
Coulee's unlawful change in conditions of employment. If the parties have
enacted a new agreement with respect to the bargaining unit, Grand Coulee will
apply the terms of the new agreement as of its effective date. WE WILL direct Grand Coulee to recognize employees in Foreman II and III
their exclusive bargaining representative. WE WILL direct Grand Coulee to reinstate, retroactive to the date of
Grand Coulee's unlawful change in conditions of employment, the right of
agreement with CBTC. We will direct Grand Coulee to waive the time limits for
filing grievances under the parties' agreement to allow employees in Foreman II
and III positions to grieve matters that they would otherwise have been able to
grieve had they been covered by the agreement. WE WILL, in accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596,
direct Grand Coulee to make whole affected employees in the Foreman II and III
CBTC applicable to the affected employees. WE WILL direct Grand Coulee to reimburse the exclusive representative,
CBTC, in an amount equal to the regular and periodic dues it would have received, but did not, from unit employees
in Foreman II and III positions who had their dues withholdings unlawfully
discontinued as a result of the unlawful refusal to honor the employees' valid
written dues assignment for such purposes. WE WILL direct Grand Coulee to deduct, commencing with the first pay
to the exclusive representative, CBTC. (Agency) Dated:__________ By:___________________ (Signature) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
653-8500. Opinion of Member Talkin, Dissenting I am persuaded that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power
Administration, Golden, Colorado v. FLRA, 880 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir. 1989)
(WAPA v. FLRA) correctly interpreted section 7112 of the Statute as it
relates to section 9(b) of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act and section 704 of
the Civil Service Reform Act. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. In WAPA v. FLRA, the court refused to defer to the Authority's
interpretation of section 704, the same interpretation to which the majority
continues to adhere. The court found that, like here, the employees at issue
were "entitled to the application of [s]ection 704." WAPA v. FLRA at
1169. However, the court stated that the Authority had not "explained how a
previously voluntary bargaining relationship [had] been converted into a vested
right for [those] supervisory employees to be included in a particular
bargaining unit when one party . . . does not agree." Id. at 1170. I do
not believe that the majority has given an adequate explanation for such a
finding here. Contrary to the Authority's position, the court concluded that section
704 does not "trump[] the prohibition on supervisors in [s]ection 7112" and
that the section 7112 prohibition on finding a mixed bargaining unit
appropriate is consistent with section 704. Id. at 1169. In this regard
the court specifically rejected the Authority's argument, repeated by the
majority here, that the scope of the bargaining unit is included within the
phrase "terms and conditions of employment" found in section 704. I agree with
the court's conclusions. For the same reasons, neither do I believe, contrary
to my colleagues, that the inclusion of supervisors in a bargaining unit can be
viewed as "[an]other employment benefit[]" under section 704. It is my view that the court was correct when it concluded that section
9(b) of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act "merely protects certain collective
bargaining contracts and the rights of parties to renegotiate them from the
effect of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act; it does not provide an exception to
the prohibition of supervisors in bargaining units contained in the Civil
Service Reform Act." Id. I would find that where, as here, the scope of
the bargaining unit was a subject of bargaining between the parties prior to
1972, "the policy behind [s]ection 704, which purports to preserve historical
subjects of negotiation, would appear to be applicable to negotiations
regarding the appropriate bargaining unit." Id. at 1170. Therefore, in agreement with the court, I would conclude that
"[s]ection 704, in conjunction with [s]ection 9(b), does not establish any
vested right in the supervisors to be part of a bargaining unit. Rather, it
merely preserves the negotiability of historical subjects of
negotiation." Id. (emphasis in original). At most, section 9(b) "allows
employees to continue to negotiate as part of a mixed unit" if the parties
agree. Id. at 1172. Therefore, even if the continued inclusion of
supervisors in the bargaining unit is a subject of negotiation permitted by
section 704 and, therefore, upon agreement of the parties, a mixed unit would
be allowed as an exception to the prohibition found in section 7112 of the
Statute, the employing agencies in this case are "under no obligation to agree
to a mixed unit. At most, [s]ection 704 authorizes mixed units if [they]
consent[]." Id. at 1170. Because there has been no agreement between the parties to continue
negotiating over the terms and conditions of the employees at issue as part of
mixed bargaining units, the unlawful refusal to bargain, as alleged, cannot be
found. While there may be a viable theory here of a violation of the Statute,
none was alleged or argued. Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaints. APPENDIX Section 9(b) of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act of 1972, Pub. L. No.
92-392, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5343 (Amendments, note), provides that:
The amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to-- (1) abrogate, modify, or otherwise affect in any way the provisions of
1972]. Section 704 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454,
92 Stat. 1111, 1218, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5343 (Amendments), provides
that: (a) Those terms and conditions of employment and other employment
9(b) of Public Law 92-392 applies which were the subject of negotiation in
accordance with prevailing rates and practices prior to August 19, 1972, shall
be negotiated on and after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 13,
1978] in accordance with the provisions of section 9(b) of Public Law 92-392
without regard to any provision of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by this title), to the extent that any
55 of title 5, United States Code. Section 7135(a) of the Statute provides the following: § 7135. Continuation of existing laws, recognitions, agreements,
and procedures (a) Nothing contained in this chapter shall preclude-- (1) the renewal or continuation of an exclusive recognition,
certification of an exclusive representative, or a lawful agreement between an
agency and an exclusive representative of its employees which is entered into
before the effective date of this chapter; or (2) the renewal, continuation, or initial according of recognition for
units of management officials or supervisors represented by labor organizations
which historically or traditionally represent management officials or
supervisors in private industry and which hold exclusive recognition for units
of such officials or supervisors in any agency on the effective date of this
chapter. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. Member Talkin's dissenting opinion is set forth after
the majority opinion. 2. The provisions of section 9(b) of the PRSA and section
704 of the CSRA are found in the Appendix to this decision. 3. A dispute subsequently arose between WAPA and IBEW over
the unit status of employees in Foreman II and III positions who were
transferred in 1977 from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
Energy. The history of that dispute is set forth in the Authority's decisions
in WAPA 1; Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration,
Golden, Colorado, Case No. 7-CU-24 (Feb. 17, 1981) (WAPA 2); U.S.
22 FLRA 758 (1986) (WAPA 3), rev'd, 880 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir.
1989); U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Golden,
Colorado, 27 FLRA 268 (1987) (WAPA 4), rev'd, No. 87-2062
(10th Cir. Nov. 15, 1989) (order); U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C. and Western Area Power Administration, Golden, Colorado, 34 FLRA 361
(1990) (WAPA 5); U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. and
Western Area Power Administration, Golden, Colorado, 34 FLRA 368 (1990)
(WAPA 6); and U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power
Administration, Golden, Colorado, 38 FLRA 935 (1990) (WAPA 7).
During the course of the dispute, transferred employees in Foreman II and III
positions were reclassified by WAPA as Supervisory Craftsmen. See
WAPA 2 and WAPA 3. Noting that the parties and the issue before
it were the same parties and issue that were before the court in WAPA v.
FLRA, the Authority concluded in WAPA 5 and WAPA 6 that the
transferred employees in Foreman II and III positions reclassified by WAPA as
Supervisory Craftsmen were not included in the unit of prevailing rate
employees represented by the union in those cases. 4. The positions of IBEW and Local 1245 are set forth in
the same brief and, for convenience, will be referred to as IBEW's
position. 5. Section 7135(a) is set forth in the Appendix to this
decision. 6. Section 704(b) provides that terms and conditions of
employment described as "pay and pay practices" may be negotiated only in
accordance with current prevailing rates and practices in the industry.