Opinion ID: 544758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sunday Premium Pay as a Prevailing Pay Practice

Text: 41 In addition to the requirement in Section 704(a) that a term or condition of employment must have been the subject of negotiations in accordance with prevailing practices prior to August 19, 1972, in order to be negotiable under Section 9(b), Section 704(b) adds the further requirement that if the subject matter of the negotiations pertains to pay and pay practices, the negotiations shall be negotiated in accordance with prevailing rates and pay practices. Pub.L. 95-454, Sec. 704(b), (codified at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5343 note) (emphasis added). 42 In the present case, the parties do not dispute that payment of Sunday premium pay is not a prevailing pay practice in the relevant area in light of a 1984 survey of pay practices conducted by Reclamation. The FLRA stated in its decision below that [t]he Union acknowledges that Sunday premium pay (1) is not a prevailing practice in the local area under consideration. Rio Grande Project, 26 F.L.R.A. No. 105 at 908. Neither the Union nor the FLRA has ever disputed the obvious--that Sunday premium pay is a pay [or] pay practice[ ] issue. Nevertheless, the FLRA rejected Reclamation's position that Sunday premium pay was not negotiable because it was not a prevailing practice in the local area, concluding that consistent with the purpose of section 9(b) and section 704 to preserve negotiations over existing benefits, employees in this case, who had historically received Sunday premium pay, may negotiate for continued payment of the premium pay regardless of whether it is a prevailing practice in the local area. Id. at 912 (emphasis added). 43 On appeal, the FLRA initially sought to defend this ruling. However, after the case had been briefed and oral argument had taken place, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on this same issue in another case. See United States Information Agency v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 895 F.2d 1449 (D.C.Cir.1990). In United States Information Agency, the court held that, if the subject at issue 9 was a pay practice, then the prevailing rate employees could not negotiate that issue under Section 704(b) unless it was a prevailing local practice. The court concluded as follows: 44 [I]f a pay practice is not among the current practices in the industry, the parties may not negotiate over that subject. Thus, in circumstances in which a party seeks to negotiate over a pay practice that is not a current practice in the industry, the in accordance with prevailing rates and pay practices clause of section 704(b) functions as a negotiability provision. 45 Id. at 1455. In United States Information Agency, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the FLRA for a determination of whether the subject at issue, cleanup time for radio technicians, was a pay practice within the meaning of Section 704(b). Id. 46 In light of the D.C. Circuit's decision in United States Information Agency, the FLRA granted a motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision in another case, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C., 33 F.L.R.A. No. 671 (1988). Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C., 36 F.L.R.A. No. 1 (1990) (granting motion for reconsideration). The FLRA accepted the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Section 704(b) put forth in United States Information Agency as correct, and changed its position accordingly. The FLRA ruled as follows: 47 On reexamination, we agree with [the D.C. Circuit's] interpretation [in United States Information Agency] that section 704(b) precludes negotiations over matters relating to pay and pay practices if those practices are not among current industry practices. Accordingly, we adopt that interpretation and will no longer follow previous Authority decisions to the extent they are inconsistent. 48 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C., 36 F.L.R.A. No. 1, slip op. at 5 (1990). Promptly thereafter, the FLRA notified this court of its change in position. See Respondent's Motion for Remand of the Case to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (filed June 12, 1990). In that motion, the FLRA confessed error on this issue and sought to have the case remanded to it for further proceedings consistent with the Authority's adoption of the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of section 704 as announced in United States Information Agency. 49 We agree with the interpretation of Section 704(b) announced by the D.C. Circuit in United States Information Agency for the reasons articulated therein. The language of Section 704(b) is clear that it authorizes pay negotiations only in accordance with prevailing rates and pay practices: 50 (b) The pay and pay practices relating to employees referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be negotiated in accordance with prevailing rates and pay practices.... 51 Pub.L. 95-454, Sec. 704(b) (codified at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5343 note) (emphasis added). The same limitation appears in the legislative history. See H. Conf. Rep. 95-1717, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 2723, 2893. The statements of Representative Ford who introduced this section during the debate in the House of Representatives further demonstrate that this limitation was intended. See 124 Cong.Rec. at 25722 (Aug. 11, 1978); see also Matter of Grand Coulee Project Office, 60 Comp.Gen. 668, 673-74 (1981). 52 Here there is no doubt that the matter of Sunday premium pay is a pay and pay practice and that Sunday premium pay is not the local prevailing practice. Accordingly, we reverse the FLRA's decision in this case because it was not in accordance with law, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A), in ordering Reclamation to negotiate the issue of Sunday premium pay.