Opinion ID: 568491
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Satisfaction of Statutory Prerequisites

Text: 40 The Bureau's primary arguments are that unions and union lawyers cannot qualify under the Back Pay Act for an award of attorneys' fees for services rendered on behalf of an employee in a proceeding to which the employee was not a named party. The Bureau also insists that fees must be disallowed in this case for failure to meet one of the statutory stipulations. We find no merit in these contentions. 41 Nothing in the Back Pay Act requires an affected employee to be named as a party to an administrative proceeding charging wrongful personnel action, and for fairly obvious reasons. As we have said, resolution of employee grievances is accomplished largely through binding arbitration, which only the union and the agency can invoke. 97 A requirement of party status would likely produce less frequent resort to this time-tested mechanism for dispute resolution as well as unfairness to many lawyers who deserve to be paid. We agree with FLRA that 42 [t]o read the Back Pay Act to require an employee to file unfair labor practice charges in addition to, or as opposed to, the Union filing such charges as the representative of that employee would emphasize form over substance and render the Back Pay Act's provisions inapplicable in a large number of cases. We do not believe that such an interpretation is necessary or appropriate. 98 43 The Bureau also points to the specification in the Back Pay Act that attorneys' fees are to be awarded, if at all, in accordance with the standards established under section 7701(g), 99 which empowers MSPB to allow reasonable attorney fees incurred by an employee in proceedings before it. 100 The Bureau contends that incurrence by the employee of a liability for fees is a requirement for an award under the Back Pay Act, and that it was not met because the union's lawyers represented Frontera free of charge. If the Bureau were correct, the astonishing result would be that Back Pay Act awards could be made only when employees could afford to pay for legal talent, which many employees are unable to do and no prevailing employee should have to do. 101 It was for those very reasons that the attorneys' fees provision was put into the Back Pay Act, 102 which is devoid of any reference to incurrence. This court has said, with reference to a similar statutory scheme, that free representation by union staff counsel does not preclude an award of attorneys' fees; 103 MSPB has held under Section 7701(g) that the fact that an employee had no contractual obligation to pay for legal services does not render inappropriate an attorneys' fee award to union-paid counsel; 104 and MSPB has further ruled that attorney fees are 'incurred' within the ambit of § 7701(g)(1) where an attorney-client relationship exists and counsel has rendered legal services on behalf of the employee. 105 Clearly, that relationship existed between Frontera and the two attorneys who labored on his behalf. 106 44 More importantly, the requirement that Back Pay Act awards of attorneys' fees abide the standards established under section 7701(g) hardly imports into the Act every prerequisite to attorneys' fee allowances by MSPB. 107 OPM, in its special interpretive role, 108 has refused to declare that this language refers to Section 7701(g)(1)'s demand for incurr[ence] by the employee 109 and has instead adopted MSPB's stance on that score. 110 In the instant cases, FLRA remained faithful to that construction 111 and after careful review believe[d] that this case presents the type of situation to which the authorization of attorney fee awards in MSPB and related proceedings is intended to apply. 112 It elucidated: 45 The sole issue in the unfair labor practice proceeding was the Agency's failure to comply with an arbitration award. The award specifically set forth the Arbitrator's ruling that Frontera was to be reinstated to a position in Ray Brook, New York, and that his assignment to Lewisburg, Pennsylvania did not constitute compliance with that award. Nonetheless, the Agency continued to refuse to properly reinstate Frontera throughout the course of substantial litigation, including the unfair labor practice proceeding and an unsuccessful appeal to the court of appeals. The employee's position was vindicated at each step of these proceedings. 113 46 We agree. An agency bears a statutory duty to comply with an arbitrator's final award, 114 and surely that obligation extends to adverse-action arbitration awards. The interest of justice is served by an allowance of attorneys' fees whenever the agency's action [is] clearly without merit, 115 and without a doubt so it was here.