Opinion ID: 559551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: VA Minneapolis

Text: 29 Shortly after enactment of the 1980 DM & S amendments, this Court was called upon to resolve the interplay between Title 5 and Title 38 provisions. In Veterans Administration Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota v. FLRA, 705 F.2d 953 (8th Cir.1983), the VA appealed from an order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority requiring the VA to bargain with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3669, over certain proposals presented by the union regarding disciplinary actions. The FLRA held the proposals were negotiable because they provided for alternative dispute resolution procedures as permitted by section 7121 of the Civil Service Reform Act. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121(e)(1). 9 The VA did not dispute the proposition that DM & S professionals were generally covered by the Civil Service Reform Act, but maintained that section 4110 of the DM & S statute provided the exclusive means for disciplining DM & S professionals. VA Minneapolis, 705 F.2d at 955, 957 n. 5. 30 In analyzing the VA's position, the VA Minneapolis court reviewed the legislative history and purpose of the 1946 DM & S statute and the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The court indicated that [i]n the absence of further guidance from Congress, we would resolve the conflict between these two statutes in favor of the duty to bargain over alternative grievance and arbitration procedures mandated in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121(e)(1), based on language in the legislative history of section 7121 which specifically referred to providing an option for employees under the Title 38 personnel system. Id. at 957-58. 10 Turning to the 1980 amendments to the DM & S statute, however, the court concluded that the express language used by Congress in the new section 4119 required the court to resolve any conflict between section 4110 and the duty to bargain under section 7121 of the Civil Service Reform Act in favor of the continued applicability of the Veterans Administration law. Id. at 958. In dicta, the court noted that section 4110 did not create procedures for the resolution of disputes over other personnel decisions common to all employment situations, such as vacation assignments or working conditions, and indicated that its decision did not preclude union proposals to resolve disputes over such matters. Id.