Opinion ID: 459825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Meaning of Grievance

Text: 11 The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FLMR), 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7101-7135 (1982), regulates the methods by which an employee member of a bargaining unit represented by an exclusive union representative may challenge adverse personnel decisions by his federal employer. If the challenged matter falls within the coverage of a negotiated grievance procedure provided for by the collective bargaining agreement between the agency and the union, that grievance procedure provides the sole mechanism for resolving the disputed matter with two exceptions. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121. 4 Where the action complained of falls within the coverage of the negotiated grievance procedure but also constitutes a complaint of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status or political affiliation, the employee may elect to pursue the matter through either the collective grievance procedure or the statutory procedures for employment discrimination suits. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121(d). Similarly, where the employee challenges a permanent or temporary reduction in grade or removal for unacceptable performance governed by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4303 or 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7512, then the matter may, in the discretion of the employee, be raised either under the procedures of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7701 providing for an appeal to the MSPB or under the negotiated grievance procedure. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121(e). 12 Philip Murphy contested his removal from his job through the appellate procedure of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7701. The FLRA concluded that Murphy's dispute did not constitute a grievance as that term is used in the FLMR because Murphy pursued the dispute under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7701 rather than under a negotiated grievance procedure. 5 Thus, in the FLRA's view, the Bureau's interview of James Lewis concerned a statutory appeal rather than a grievance and NTEU, as the exclusive representative, had no right under Sec. 7114(a)(2)(A) to be represented at the interview. 13 We find the FLRA's construction of grievance to be contrary to the plain language of the statute. Section 7103 of the FLMR defines a grievance as follows: 14 (a) For the purpose of this chapter-- 15 (9) grievance means any complaint-- 16 (A) by any employee concerning any matter relating to the employment of the employee.... 17 Nothing in this definition restricts a grievance to matters raised through a negotiated procedure. Murphy appealed to the MSPB contending that the Bureau improperly fired him because his conduct did not rise to a level of unacceptable job performance as required for removal of a federal employee by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4303. Murphy's appeal to the MSPB thus meets the statutory definition of a grievance as an employee complaint concerning a matter relating to [his] employment. 18 Section 7114 guarantees NTEU, as the exclusive representative, the right to be represented at any formal discussion between an employee and an agency representative concerning Murphy's grievance. 6 That Murphy's grievance challenges an individualized discharge for alleged insubordination does not alter NTEU's right of representation. While the FLRA may be correct in its assertion that the phrase any personnel policy or practices in Sec. 7114 is limited to those discussions which concern conditions of employment affecting unit employees generally, 7 the term grievance in Sec. 7114 is not similarly restricted. In the sectional analysis of the Udall Substitute which eventually became the present Sec. 7114, Representative Udall explained: 19 By inserting the word general before conditions of employment, the substitute limits the right of representation to those formal discussions (other than grievance discussions ) which concern conditions of employment affecting employees in the unit generally. 8 20 A grievance discussion, unlike a discussion of a personnel policy or practice, may involve a particularized application of a personnel policy to an employee. 21 The FLRA points to Sec. 7121 of the FLMR and to its legislative history to support its contention that the term grievance in Sec. 7114(a)(2)(A) refers only to grievances actually pursued under a negotiated grievance procedure and not to complaints pursued through other statutory procedures. The FLRA's argument, as we understand it, is as follows. In the FLMR, Congress has provided that a negotiated grievance procedure generally will be the exclusive procedure for resolving those disputes which fall within its coverage. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7121(a). However, in Sec. 7121(d) and (e) of the FLMR, Congress created two exceptions to this exclusive coverage. Congress thereby ensured that any employee suffering a prohibited form of discrimination under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(1) 9 or challenging serious disciplinary measures imposed for unacceptable job performance could avoid the collective grievance procedure and seek relief under certain alternative statutory procedures, including an appeal to the MSPB. While Sec. 7121(b)(3) of the FLMR requires that an employee must either be his own representative or select the union as his representative when pursuing a negotiated grievance procedure, Sec. 7114(a)(5)(A) of the FLMR guarantees that an employee seeking relief through a procedure other than the negotiated grievance procedure need not be represented by the union. 10 By permitting an employee to select his own representative when pursuing relief outside the negotiated grievance procedures, Congress must have intended to exclude the union from any right of inclusion in the statutory alternatives to the negotiated grievance procedure guaranteed in Sec. 7121(d) and (e). Consequently, the union on its own behalf should have no right of representation when an employee and an agency representative discuss the subject matter of a dispute pursued through these alternative statutory procedures. To support this reading of the FLMR, the FLRA relies on a statement in the House Report that 22 It should be noted that, although this subsection [Sec. 7103(a)(9) ] is virtually all-inclusive in defining grievance, section 7121 excludes certain grievances from being processed under a negotiated grievance procedure, thereby limiting the net effect of the term. 11 23 In light of the structure of Sec. 7121, which requires an employee to choose between two overlapping remedies, we read this sentence from the House Report not as a statement scaling back the rights of an exclusive representative to be represented at formal discussions concerning grievances but rather as a guarantee that an agency employer will not be forced to defend its challenged conduct in both a statutory procedure and a negotiated grievance procedure. Absent some more positive indication that Congress in fact meant in all circumstances to exclude the union from any formal discussion of matters raised in the alternative statutory procedures guaranteed in Sec. 7121(d) and (e), we reject the FLRA's attempt to read the distinctions drawn in Sec. 7121 back into the original definition of grievance provided in Sec. 7103(a)(9). Such a reading of grievance strains the language of the statute at every turn. For example, if the term grievance referred only to disputes pursued through negotiated grievance procedures, Sec. 7121(d) and (e) would not be worded to require an aggrieved employee (emphasis supplied) to elect to pursue a remedy under either a negotiated procedure or a statutory procedure. An aggrieved employee--i.e., one with a grievance--would by definition necessarily pursue his grievance under a negotiated procedure. Likewise, to read grievance as the FLRA attempts to do would render self-contradictory Sec. 7121(a)(1) which provides that Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the procedures [provided by a collective bargaining agreement] shall be the exclusive procedures for resolving grievances which fall within its coverage (emphasis supplied). Section 7121(a)(1) says that the statutory procedures referred to in Sec. 7121(d) and (e) are also procedures for resolving grievances. 24 Nor can the FLRA rely on legislative history to pare down the definition of grievance contained in Sec. 7103(a)(9). The only plausible reading of the sentence in the House Report quoted above is that Sec. 7121 ensures that some grievances cannot be processed under a negotiated procedure. The House Report merely indicates that the all-inclusive definition of grievance in Sec. 7103(a)(9) and Sec. 7114(a)(2)(A) is broader than the effect of the term under Sec. 7121. Congress was compelled to limit the effect of the term grievance in Sec. 7121 precisely because the broad definition of the term would otherwise include grievances brought under a statutory procedure as well as those brought under a negotiated grievance procedure. 25 Our interpretation of the term grievance may differ from that of the Ninth Circuit in Internal Revenue Service, Fresno Service Center, Fresno, California v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 706 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir.1983). There the Court of Appeals held that 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7114(a)(2)(A) does not guarantee a union the right to representation at an Equal Employment Opportunity precomplaint conciliation conference. The Ninth Circuit's decision appears to us to be based primarily on its conclusion that the precomplaint conference did not constitute a formal discussion. See 706 F.2d at 1023-24. To the extent, however, that the Ninth Circuit may have construed the term grievance to include only disputes governed by a negotiated procedure, we must disagree with its interpretation for the reasons already discussed. The language and structure of the statute lead us to a different result. We also disagree with the Ninth Circuit's assumption that the union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of unit employees, has no cognizable interest in being represented when a dispute being pursued under a statutory procedure is the subject of a discussion between an employee and an agency representative. See 706 F.2d at 1024-25. The Ninth Circuit suggests that the union's only interest in being present at a formal discussion of a grievance stems from the fact that it negotiates and plays an institutional role in the collective grievance procedure. Id. 26 We view the interest of unions under the FLMR as potentially far broader. Section 7121 recognizes that employee complaints challenging alleged discrimination or a permanent or temporary removal for allegedly unacceptable performance will often be covered by a collective bargaining agreement as well as by statutory procedures. Double coverage is to be expected: resolution of such episodes can potentially affect all bargaining unit employees in important ways. Decisions about what constitutes an unjust dismissal or an unacceptable basis for preferring or rejecting a single employee spills over to the rights and expectations of all unit employees. Remedies for improper employer conduct, such as reinstatement or retroactive seniority, also may affect other bargaining unit employees, since a benefit or opportunity granted to one employee can mean the loss of the same benefit or opportunity for another employee. The impact of these individual complaints on the bargaining unit will be felt regardless of whether the aggrieved employee opts to pursue a negotiated grievance procedure or an alternative statutory procedure. We are therefore reluctant to follow the Ninth Circuit's suggestion in IRS, Fresno Service Center that the union's role in protecting the interest of the bargaining unit is inherently restricted to those situations in which an employee pursues a grievance through a negotiated grievance procedure. 27 Of course, recognition of a union's interest, as the representative of the bargaining unit, in the alternative statutory procedures guaranteed in Sec. 7121(d) and (e) does not answer the question of the union's statutory role in such procedures. Under the FLMR, the union's institutional role in these statutory grievance procedures is obviously more restricted than its role in a negotiated grievance procedure. The FLMR provides that only the union may represent an employee in a negotiated grievance procedure if the employee elects not to present the grievance himself; the statute does not similarly restrict an employee's choice of a representative outside the negotiated grievance procedure. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7114(a)(5). Nonetheless, although the union's institutional role may be restricted, we do not think it necessarily is nonexistent. In the absence of congressional intent to the contrary or any plausible alternative interpretation of the statute by the FLRA, we find that the words of Sec. 7114(a)(2)(A), which provide that an exclusive representative has the right to be present at any formal discussion of a grievance between management and a bargaining unit employee, assure the union a role in the alternative procedures so long as the statutory criteria of Sec. 7114(a)(2)(A) are met. 12