Opinion ID: 185457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The proposals at issue are outside of the duty to bargain

Text: 19 Section 7117(a)(1) of Title 5 specifies that the duty to bargain in good faith extends to matters not inconsistent with any Federal law. 5 U.S.C. 7117(a)(1). The FLRA found that the Unions' proposals are inconsistent with 709(b) of the Technician Act, 32 U.S.C. 709(b). We agree. 20 Subsections 709(b)(2) and (3) of the Technician Act state that National Guard technicians must be members of the National Guard and hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for that position, that is, the military grade specified by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force. These two subsections were contained in 202 of H.R. 2, a bill proposed to strengthen the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, and clarify the status of National Guard technicians, as originally introduced. H.R. Rep. No. 90-13, at 1, 101-02 (1967). In Title II, which addressed the status of National Guard technicians, the bill as reported amended clause (b) of 709 as follows: 21 Except as prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a technician employed under subsection (a) shall, while so employed, be a member of the National Guard and hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for that position. 22 Id. at 101-02. In the Report accompanying the original bill, the Committee on Armed Services observed that [c]lause (b) convert[ed] to a statutory requirement that which had long been the practice of the Secretary concerned, namely to designate certain positions as 'officer positions,' others as 'enlisted positions,' which [could] be filled only by individuals who hold the appropriate grade in the National Guard. Id. at 58. The Committee recognized the high correlation between the duties of the technician in his military and civilian capacities, and concluded that, 23 [i]n the interest of efficiency and discipline, a military commander should not be a civilian subordinate of a member of his unit. Such inversions may be prevented by authorizing the Secretary concerned to establish the military grade required for employment in a particular technician position. Proposed 32 U.S.C. 709(b) of the bill would so provide. 24 Id. at 58-59 (emphasis added). 25 In the Fall of 1967, the Committee on Armed Services, considering H.R. 2, agreed to defer action on the section addressing the status of National Guard technicians until the second session of the 90th Congress. Senate Comm. on Armed Services, 90th Cong. 1967-68 Legislative Calendar, at 25 (July 22, 1968). During the second session, the Committee reported S. 3865, the National Guard Technician Act of 1968.S. Rep. No. 90-1446 (1968). As with Title II of H.R. 2, a purpose of the bill was to clarify the technicians' legal status. Id. at 1. Important for present purposes, 709 clause (b) of S. 3865 was identical to that contained in H.R. 2. Id. at 4041. The Report accompanying S. 3865 expressed the firm view that technicians who are required to be military members of the National Guard should occupy a military position which is compatible with their civilian technician position. Id. at 20. 26 The legislative history underlying 709(b) underscores three points. First, Congress found compatibility requirements to be essential to military efficiency and discipline. Second, Congress intended to maintain the long-time practice of the Secretary to designate certain positions to be filled only by individuals who hold the appropriate grade in the National Guard. Third, in requiring National Guard technicians to [h]old the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned, 709(b) aims, inter alia, to preserve the high correlation between the duties of the technician in his military and civilian capacities. Because the Unions' proposals are at odds with these purposes, they are inconsistent with [a] Federal law and, consequently, outside the duty to bargain under 7117(a)(1). See, e.g., Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Mont. Air Chapter, 20 F.L.R.A. at 723-27 (examining legislative history of 709 and reaching same result). 27 In short, under the Technician Act, it is clear that a National Guard technician must hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for that position, and that this requirement includes holding a grade that is consistent with the military grade inversion policy. It also appears undisputed that the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, implementing the decision of the Secretaries, specified that there could be no grade inversion in technician Wage Leader positions. The Authority was therefore fully warranted in finding that the Unions' proposals were nonnegotiable under 7117(a)(1). 28 The Unions point out that the Authority did not find that 709(b) grants the agency unfettered discretion to determine military grades. See Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, 56 F.L.R.A. at 434 n.4. They assert, additionally, that because statutes granting agencies discretion, but not unfettered discretion, are not bars to negotiation, see, e.g., Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr., Veterans Canteen Serv., 44 F.L.R.A. (No. 16) 162, 16365 (1992), their proposals are not prohibited by 709. This argument misses the point. 29 Bargaining over the military grade inversion policy is inconsistent with a federal law. That, by itself, makes the proposals nonnegotiable. The Authority made this absolutely clear when it held that, with regard to a matter that might otherwise be negotiable as a condition of employment, bargaining will nevertheless be foreclosed if a proposal is inconsistent with law. Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, 55 F.L.R.A. at 1229, reprinted in J.A. 13. Further, in its order denying the motion for reconsideration, the Authority emphasized that the Unions' proposals are outside the duty to bargain without regard to whether they are ... within the sole discretion of an agency. Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Texas Lone Star Chapter 100, 56 F.L.R.A. at 434, reprinted in J.A. 17 (emphasis and ellipsis in original). We can find no fault with these holdings. 30 The Unions contend that the Authority's decision goes too far in suggesting that any proposal affecting the military aspects of technician employment is outside of the duty to bargain. There is merit in this contention, but we need not address the issue. The Authority is correct that the disputed Union proposals are inconsistent with law and, therefore, beyond the bounds of permissible bargaining. We deny the petition for review on this ground alone.