Opinion ID: 513340
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relationship of the Union's Proposals to Federal Law

Text: 27 As mentioned above, the FSLMRA excludes from conditions of employment any matters provided for by federal statute or inconsistent with federal law. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7103(a)(14)(C) & 7117(a)(2) (1980). Although the federal prevailing rate act sets wages for most federal employees, the statute creating the Fort Stewart schools specifically excludes the schools' employees from these federal laws. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 241. The Army contends, however, that federal law still provides for these employees' wages and benefits. The Army argues that section 241 specifically sets compensation and leave practices for these employees because this section requires it to compensate the dependents schools' employees according to local public school practices. The FLRA concluded that section 241 does not require the Army to equalize the dependents school employees' and local school employees' compensation. We need not defer to the FLRA's conclusion, however, because such deference only applies when the FLRA interprets the FSLMRA. See West Point Elementary School Teachers Assoc., at 940; Dep't. of Treasury v. FLRA, 837 F.2d 1163, 1167 (D.C.Cir.1988) (courts need not defer to FLRA decision interpreting a statute other than the FSLMRA). 28 Section 241 requires that the Army to the maximum extent practicable provide a comparable education to local public schools at a cost per pupil not exceeding the per pupil cost of free public education in local communities. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 241(a) & (e) (1974 & Supp.1988). The Second Circuit recently held that these provisions did not specifically set the dependents schools' teachers' salaries because the Army could maintain cost parity and educational comparability despite wide variations in teachers' salaries; consequently, the Second Circuit concluded that the Army had a duty to bargain over a salary proposal. West Point Elementary School Teachers Assoc., at 943. 29 We agree with the Second Circuit that section 241 does not specifically provide for the schools' teachers' and other employees' wages. First, section 241 as a whole demonstrates that the Army has wide discretion to set these employees' salaries. The third sentence of section 241(a) requires dependents schools outside the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii to provide a comparable education to free public schools in the District of Columbia. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 241(a) (Supp.1988). In 1978, Congress added another sentence to section 241(a) which reads: Personnel provided for under this subsection outside of the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, shall receive such compensation, tenure, leave, hours of work, and other incidents of employment on the same basis as provided for similar positions in the public schools in the District of Columbia. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 241(a) (Supp.1988). Interpreting comparable education to include comparable salaries would make the additional sentence redundant. 30 The Army argues that this sentence is not redundant if comparable education includes comparable wages, but rather, the sentence is unnecessary if comparable education did not incorporate comparable salaries. According to the Army, Congress amended section 241 because it wanted to raise the Puerto Rican dependents school employees' salaries above the local schools' insufficient wages. The Army argues that Congress could have raised their salaries without amending section 241 if this section did not require the Army to pay its school employees a comparable salary to local public school employees. 31 Contrary to the Army's contention, if comparable education included comparable salaries, Congress would not have needed to amend section 241 to raise the Puerto Rican schools' employees' pay. Section 241 already required the Army to provide the schools outside the United States with a comparable education to the District of Columbia's public schools; therefore, Congress did not need to add the new sentence if Congress only intended to raise the schools' salaries. Rather, Congress added this sentence to correct the existing pay practices which invite[d] abuse by not specifying personnel practices, especially regarding salary.... H.R.Rep. No. 1137, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 108, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4971, 5078. Consequently, if comparable education included comparable salaries, Congress would not have needed to pass this amendment. We decline to construe the statute to render this provision mere surplusage. See United States v. Wang Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir.1972) (courts should not construe statutes to make words meaningless or surplusage where Congress expressly included the words). 32 Second, the legislative history demonstrates that Congress did not intend comparable education to require identical salaries. In 1959, the Comptroller General issued a decision holding that under section 241 as it existed at that time, the Army could not compensate West Point teachers according to teachers' salaries in a neighboring city. In response to the Army's legislative proposals to change this ruling, Congress amended section 241 in 1965 to provide: For the purpose of providing such comparable education, personnel may be employed and the compensation, tenure, leave, hours of work and other incidents of the employment relationship may be fixed without regard to the Civil Service Act and rules.... 20 U.S.C. Sec. 241(a) (1974 & Supp.1988) (emphasis added). By choosing the term may, Congress did not require the military departments to establish compensation in accordance with local public schools, but merely gave military departments the discretion to deviate from the prevailing rate act and establish compensation in such manner. 33 A senate report similarly demonstrates that section 241 does not require comparable salaries. The senate report accompanying the 1965 amendment illustrates that Congress amended section 241 in response to the Army's request to compensate teachers comparable to the teaching profession rather than to local school practices. S.Rep. No. 311, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1965 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1910, 1913. The Army explained that the federal pay acts did not practically accommodate the teaching profession: teachers' salary schedules are set on a school-year basis while the federal pay acts set salaries on a calendar year; federal employees receive overtime pay but teachers receive fixed amounts for extracurricular activities; and teachers do not observe the forty-hour work week of most federal employees. See 1965 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 1913. Because of these differences, the Army concluded: Based upon the Department's experience in operating [dependents] schools, it is highly desirable that the personnel practices for instructional personnel be patterned after those usually encountered in the teacher profession rather than those which have been developed for the Federal Service as a whole. 1965 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 1913. Thus, Congress amended section 241 to allow the Army to compensate its teachers in accordance with the entire teaching profession rather than mandating it to adhere to the local public schools' pay practices. 34 We conclude that section 241 does not compel the Army to follow local public schools' pay practices, therefore, the Army has discretion for setting the dependents schools' employees' salaries. Because the Army has such discretion, the Union's proposals do not conflict with or involve matters specifically set by law. Consequently, we hold that the Union's compensation and fringe benefits proposals involve conditions of employment subject to the duty to bargain.