Opinion ID: 151423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Statute and the Act

Text: The Union argues that, to the extent there is any conflict between the two, the Statute amends the Act by implication. But see Blanchette v. Conn. Gen. Ins. Corps., 419 U.S. 102, 134, 95 S.Ct. 335, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974) (A new statute will not be read as wholly or even partially amending a prior one unless there exists a `positive repugnancy' between the provisions of the new and those of the old that cannot be reconciled (internal quotation marks deleted)). At oral argument the Authority for the first time adopted this argument. As support the Union and the Authority point to § 7112(c) of the Statute, which section prohibits employees of an agency that administers a labor relations law (e.g., the Board) from being represented by a union that also represents employees to whom the Statute applies. This is evidence, they say, the Congress had the Act in mind when it wrote the Statute, and therefore must have intended the Statute to supersede the Act to the extent they conflict. We need not determine whether the Statute amends the Act by implication because, in the decision under review, the FLRA claimed to have interpreted both statutes so that they do not conflict and affirmed the Regional Director's conclusion that § 3(d) does not preclude the consolidation. 62 F.L.R.A. at -14. Although the court [will not] upset a decision because of errors that are not material, Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C.Cir.1970), the Authority's erroneous interpretation of the Act plainly was material to its holding; therefore we must vacate the order under review. In making unit determinations the Authority routinely takes into account delegations of responsibility prescribed by the Congress. See U.S. Dep't of Def., Nat'l Guard Bureau, 55 F.L.R.A. 657, 661 (1999). Had the Authority correctly interpreted the Act it might well have held the unit requested by the Union is not appropriate under the Statute for the reason it gave in the National Guard case, to wit, the statutory scheme is not workable if employees do not have a right to negotiate with the same officials who exercise authority over their conditions of employment. Id. at 661. That, however, is a matter for the Authority, not the court, to address in the first instance.