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

Heading: Army's Right to Set its Budget

Text: 37 The Army finally contends that the Union's proposals infringe upon its right to set its budget. The FLRA concluded that the Army failed to demonstrate that the Union's proposals interfere with its right to determine its budget. We must give deference to the FLRA's decision because this decision involves the application of the FSLMRA. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7106(a)(1) (Army has a right to set its budget); see also Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 97, 104 S.Ct. 439, 444, 78 L.Ed.2d 195 (1983) (FLRA is entitled to considerable deference when it applies the FSLMRA to federal labor relations disputes). Further, we accept the FLRA's findings of fact because the record as a whole provides substantial evidence to support such findings. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7123(c) (1980). 38 In West Point, the Second Circuit rejected the Army's contention that a salary proposal interfered with its right to set its budget. The court noted that the proposal did not specify particular salary figures and that the proposal would not necessarily increase the Army's costs. West Point Elementary School Teachers Assoc., at 944. Consequently, the court deferred to the FLRA's decision that the proposal violated such right. 39 We similarly defer to the FLRA's decision that the Union's proposals do not invade the Army's right to make its budget. A proposal does not infringe on an agency's right to determine its budget merely because the proposed matter will increase the agency's costs. AFGE and Air Force Logistics Command, 2 F.L.R.A. at 607. Rather, an agency must show either that the proposals (1) prescribe the particular programs or operations the agency would include in its budget or ... prescribe the amount to be allocated in the budget, or (2) would cause significant and unavoidable cost increases without creating any compensating benefits. AFGE and Air Force Logistics Command, 2 F.L.R.A. 604. The FLRA concluded that the Army did not demonstrate that the proposals would cause substantial and unavoidable cost increases. 40 The evidence supports this conclusion. The proposals would not necessarily increase the Army's costs; the Army did not specify any amount by which the proposed matters would increase its budget. Further, any increase in the employees' salaries would not significantly increase the Army's budget; the Army concedes that its budget includes bases, troops, weapons, vehicles, other equipment, salaries for all other officers, and expenses for its eight other schools. Finally, the Army did not establish that no compensating benefits would offset such costs even if its costs increased. Therefore, we defer to the FLRA's decision because the record supports the FLRA's conclusions and hold that the Army failed to establish that the Union's proposals would interfere with its right to determine its budget.