Opinion ID: 559551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The FLRA's Jurisdiction Over An Existing Collective Bargaining Agreement

Text: 57 We turn now to the question of the Authority's jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining agreement which the VA has voluntarily entered into with the union. The VA and the FLRA argue that even though the VA has exercised the authority granted under section 4108 to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the union, that agreement is not enforceable by the FLRA. 58 In rejecting the union's claim that the VA must bargain over working conditions, the Colorado Nurses court specifically observed that section 4108(a) does not preclude the VA from choosing to negotiate about particular matters. Colorado Nurses, 851 F.2d at 1491. The court also made reference to the legislative history of the 1980 DM & S amendments, which the court interpreted as an indication that Congress did not wish to upset the settled expectations of those VA employees working 'under existing collective bargaining agreements.'  Id. (citing Explanatory Statement of Compromise Agreement on H.R. 7102/S. 2534, 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2557, 2563) (emphasis supplied by Colorado Nurses court). 59 In its answer to the unfair labor practice petition filed by the union, the VA conceded that it was an agency covered by the Civil Service Reform Act, that the union was a labor organization under the terms of the Act, and that the VA had agreed to abide by the Interim Agreement, which remained in force. In testimony before the ALJ, Fargo VA Personnel Officer Ray Johnson affirmed that the VA continued to respect the provisions of article XII of the Nurses' Association agreement as a past practice under article 4 of the Interim Agreement. 17 60 The FLRA reasoned that because the VA had no mandatory duty to bargain over working conditions under the Civil Service Reform Act, the collective bargaining agreement in effect between the VA and the union did not fit the definition of collective bargaining agreement under the Act and the Authority was without jurisdiction to enforce it. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(a)(8). 18 The union urges us to reject the FLRA's miserly reading of the term 'collective bargaining agreement,'  citing American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 750 F.2d 143, 146, 148 (D.C.Cir.1984). 61 In the American Federation case, the FLRA contended, as it does here, that collective bargaining agreements which are voluntarily negotiated fall outside the term collective bargaining agreement under the Civil Service Reform Act. Id. While the issue arose in a different context from that presented here, we find the Authority's crabbed construction of the term collective bargaining agreement is equally unwarranted in this case. See id. As the union points out, the Civil Service Reform Act itself contemplates that certain issues are negotiable at the election of the agency, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7106(b)(1), 19 and the Authority has exercised jurisdiction over agreements reached as a result of these voluntary negotiations. See Local 1917, American Federation of Government Employees and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Eastern Region, 13 FLRA 77, 78 (1983). 62 The FLRA argues that comparing an agency's voluntary bargaining agreement under section 7106(b)(1) with the VA's voluntary bargaining agreement is like comparing apples and oranges because the VA is acting independently of Title 5 provisions. We cannot agree. In VA Minneapolis, this Court ruled that the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act applied to the VA absent other overriding provisions of law. VA Minneapolis, 705 F.2d at 955. Unlike the issue of mandatory bargaining discussed above, section 4108(a) of the DM & S statute does not preclude the VA from engaging in voluntary bargaining over terms and conditions of employment. See Colorado Nurses, 851 F.2d at 1491. Moreover, because voluntary bargaining is not inconsistent with the DM & S statute, section 4119 does not apply and cannot be read to preclude the application of any Title 5 provisions. See VA Minneapolis, 705 F.2d at 956 n. 3. In short, there is nothing in the DM & S statute which conflicts with the FLRA's assertion of jurisdiction over a collective bargaining agreement the VA has voluntarily agreed to abide by. 63 The agencies' position that the FLRA lacks jurisdiction over the VA's voluntary agreement with the union renders that agreement unenforceable. Nothing in the language or legislative history of either the DM & S statute or the Civil Service Reform Act supports this result. To the contrary, there is ample evidence that when Congress passed the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, it believed Title 38 employees would be covered by its provisions. 20 There is also ample evidence that when Congress amended the DM & S statute in 1980, it knew that the VA had entered into collective bargaining agreements with Title 38 employees, and it did not wish to detract in any way from employee rights under existing collective bargaining agreements between the VA and its employees. Explanatory Statement, 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 2563. 64 For these reasons, we must reject as unreasonable the FLRA's position that it lacks any jurisdiction over existing collective bargaining agreements with Title 38 employees. We hold the FLRA has jurisdiction over disputes under collective bargaining agreements the VA has voluntarily agreed to abide by, and accordingly we reverse the FLRA's dismissal of the union's unfair labor practice petition in Case No. 90-1380, 34 FLRA No. 40, which was brought pursuant to the terms of such an agreement.