Opinion ID: 568491
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Structure and History of the Act's Fee Provision

Text: 28 When we examine the structure of the Back Pay Act's fee section and its legislative history, it becomes even more evident that Congress did not intend to banish unions or their salaried lawyers from the realm of reasonable remuneration. 29 One of the major accomplishments of the Civil Service Reform Act was statutory protection of the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them. 75 Labor organizations ... in the civil service, Congress declared, are in the public interest, 76 and the Act allots various functions to them. 77 Of special interest to us are those defining the role of unions in grievances and unfair labor practice actions. 30 Agencies must accord exclusive recognition to unions selected by unit employees as their representatives. 78 The union chosen becomes the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. 79 With exceptions not applicable here, collective bargaining agreements must provide procedures for the settlement of grievances, including questions of arbitrability, 80 which are the exclusive procedures for resolving grievances which fall within [their] coverage. 81 All grievance procedures thus negotiated must 31 include procedures that-- 32 (A) assure an exclusive representative the right, in its own behalf or on behalf of any employee in the unit represented by the exclusive representative, to present and process grievances; 33 (B) assure such an employee the right to present a grievance on the employee's own behalf, and assure the exclusive representative the right to be present during the grievance proceeding; and 34 (C) provide that any grievance not satisfactorily settled under the negotiated grievance procedure shall be subject to binding arbitration which may be invoked by either the exclusive representative or the agency. 82 35 The interplay of these provisions is well illustrated by the events transpiring in the cases at bar. The union, as exclusive representative of the employees in Frontera's bargaining unit, worked out with the Bureau of Prisons a collective bargaining agreement specifying procedures for processing and resolving grievances. The union later represented Frontera in his individual grievance proceeding, assigning two of its staff attorneys to the effort. When the parties deadlocked, the union called for arbitration and won an order favorable to Frontera. Thereafter, when the Bureau refused to obey the arbitral order, the union prosecuted an unfair labor practice action to a successful conclusion. Union counsel then sought compensation for the services they rendered in Frontera's behalf and invoked the Back Pay Act as the statutory foundation for an allowance thereof. Our dissenting colleague says that they must be rebuffed because the Act authorizes an attorneys' fee award only to an employee, which the union and its lawyers definitely were not. 36 We would be greatly surprised to learn that they must be turned down if that were to become the case. Attorneys' fees are for the asking when employees are permissibly represented by privately-retained counsel and the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. 83 It is inconceivable that Congress, after imposing vital representational duties on unions, meant to deny fee awards when union lawyers served employees in like fashion. We need not, however, rest our decision upon this consideration alone, for specific features of the Act demonstrate beyond cavil that Congress did not intend that result. 37 An employee subjected to disciplinary action 84 may elect either to appeal to MSPB 85 or to utilize an available negotiated grievance procedure. 86 If the employee picks the latter, the union has the right to present and process the grievance on behalf of the employee 87 and, if the grievance is not satisfactorily settled by negotiation, the union or the agency may require submission of the dispute to binding arbitration. 88 While it is the employee's decision whether to use the negotiated grievance procedure at all, 89 the Supreme Court reminds us that [t]he union and the agency possess the exclusive power to invoke the arbitral process.... 90 So it was in the instant case that the union was formally a party to the arbitration and Frontera, the real party in interest, was not. 38 When we examine the dissent's position against this statutory backdrop, we find it totally at war with the Back Pay Act. As we have seen, the Act expressly authorizes attorneys' fee awards for services furnished in grievance or unfair labor practice proceedings on behalf of employees adversely affected by unjustified or unwarranted personnel actions. 91 This was the upshot of congressional dissatisfaction with the 1966 version of the Act, which had left the expense of legal representation wholly upon employees, even when they were successful in their efforts. 92 Grievances usually wind up in arbitration, which unions must invoke and service; 93 many are resolved in unfair labor practice actions, which ordinarily are handled by union lawyers; 94 and employees cannot be represented by outside counsel when, as here, negotiated grievance and unfair labor practice procedures are utilized. 95 So, while the Act supplies the promise and the means of compensating union counsel, the dissent would snatch this opportunity away on the theory that union counsel cannot benefit from the Act. 39 After imposing upon unions and their lawyers the responsibility of employee representation in areas vital in the scheme of the Civil Service Reform Act, it would have been the height of irony for Congress to deny them the blessing of the Back Pay Act. We are unwilling to attribute such a purpose to Congress. Moreover, it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that, to the extent possible, a legislative enactment is to be so read as to give operation to all of its parts, 96 and we are not prepared to disregard this salutary canon of interpretation.