Opinion ID: 669040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agency Head Approval Under Section 7114(c)

Text: 18 The plain language of the statute provides that the agency head shall approve an executed agreement if the agreement is in accordance with the provisions of ... applicable law, rule, or regulation. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7114(c)(2). The word shall generally indicates a command that admits of no discretion on the part of the person instructed to carry out the directive. See Exportal Ltda. v. United States, 902 F.2d 45, 50 (D.C.Cir.1990). So here, too, the statute clearly orders that unless the agreement is unlawful or in violation of a rule or regulation, the head of the agency shall approve the agreement and permit it to go into effect. The agency head, then, is not given free reign to prune collective bargaining agreements where local negotiators have come to legally viable arrangements. 19 This common-sense reading of the Act is amply borne out by its legislative history. The agency head approval provision first appeared in the Senate version of the bill and was later added to the House version in conference. See 124 CONG.REC. H13,608 (daily ed. Oct. 14, 1978) (remarks by House manager, Rep. Ford), reprinted in SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL PERSONNEL AND MODERNIZATION OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 995 (1979) (LEGISLATIVE HISTORY);); S.2640, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. Sec. 7219 (1978), reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra, at 550, 591; see generally American Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 850, 858 (D.C.Cir.1985) (AFGE ) (discussing legislative history of agency head provision). As the Senate Committee explained, a substantially identical provision is contained in Executive Order 11491 which was superseded by the FSLMRA. S.REP. NO. 969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 109 (1978), reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra, at 743, 769. 20 As we noted in AFGE, the Executive Orders, which until passage of the FSLMRA had regulated labor-management relations in federal employment, had always made provisions for head of the agency review. AFGE, 778 F.2d at 858 n. 12. See Exec.Order 11,491, sec. 15, 34 Fed.Reg. 17,605, 17,612 (1969), reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra, at 1244, 1252; Exec.Order 10,988, sec. 7, 27 Fed.Reg. 551, 554 (1962), reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra, at 1211, 1214. However, while the first Executive Order regulating federal labor-management relations simply provided that any agreement must be approved by the head of the agency, Exec.Order 10,988, sec. 7, supra, the broad scope of that review was narrowed by Executive Order 11,491. [I]n order to prevent 'second guessing' on substantive issues, the scope of such review was limited to the agreement's conformity with laws, existing published agency policies and regulations, and regulations of appropriate authorities outside the agency. Federal Labor Relations Council, Summary of Developments to 1977, reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra, at 1160, 1167 (emphasis added). 1 Thus, when local agency negotiators execute a collective bargaining agreement over matters that are permissible subjects of bargaining under the law and current agency policy, their election to negotiate may not be subsequently withdrawn by the agency head. Cf. 124 CONG.REC. H13,608 (daily ed. Oct. 14, 1978) (statement by Rep. Ford) (In general, agency negotiators are to be fully empowered to agree to exceptions to agency regulations concerning conditions of employment, including portions of agency regulations supported by compelling need where the need does not apply to the portion of the regulation.), reprinted in LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra at 995. This limitation is unambiguously reflected in the language of Sec. 7114(c) itself. 21 The agency head's disapproval of an agreement under Sec. 7114(c), then, is essentially an assertion of nonnegotiability of matters that have erroneously been subjected to collective bargaining. When an agreement is contrary to law or applicable regulation, its execution by local negotiators and the union is irrelevant, since, as the Ninth Circuit observed in Montana Air Chapter No. 29, Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Inc. v. FLRA, 898 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir.1990), 22 [w]hether a provision of the agreement is in accordance with applicable law is not subject to bargaining: either the agreement accords with the law or it does not.