Document: 495 U.S. 641 110 S.Ct. 2043 109 L.Ed.2d 659 FORT STEWART SCHOOLS, Petitionerv.FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, et al. No. 89-65. Argued Jan. 10, 1990. Decided May 29, Syllabus During collective bargaining, petitioner schools, which are owned and operated by the Army at a military facility, declined to negotiate with respondent Fort Stewart Association of Educators (Union) over proposals relating salary increase fringe benefits. Respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority held that Service Labor-Management Statute (FSLMRS or Statute) required bargain proposals. The Court Appeals affirmed. Held: did not err in ruling was Union's Pp. 644-657. (a) Authority's conclusion related "conditions employment" within meaning Statute, covered employers bargain, is based upon permissible construction entitled deference absent an unambiguous expression congressional intent contrary. Cf. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842-843, 104 2778, 2781-2782, 81 694. defines as matters "affecting working conditions," but excludes (1) prohibited partisan political activities; (2) classification positions; (3) specifically provided for federal statute. Although, isolation, term "working conditions" might be read connote only physical conditions under employee labors, structure statutory definition tends negate meaning, would render first two exceptions unnecessary. There no merit petitioner's contention that, although may generally include any matter insisted prerequisite accepting employment, it does wages. Wages quintessential employment. Nor inclusion National Act Postal Reorganization specific references "wages" relevant here; those statutes deal labor-management relations entirely different spheres, nothing FSLMRS indicates pari materia them. Statements legislative history suggesting duty extend wage fringe-benefit also irrelevant, light indications these statements were on erroneous belief wages benefits all Executive Branch employees fixed law therefore eliminated from third exception. 644-650. (b) exempted provision specifying "nothing this chapter shall affect authority [agency] management official . determine [agency's] budget." Under precedents interpreting provision, had burden proving result significant unavoidable increases costs. Since placed record document its total costs even current teachers' salaries, reasonably determined could conclude one budget item indeterminate amount whether whole significantly unavoidably increased. 650-653. (c) Title 20 U.S.C. § 241—which directs agencies establishing schools federally property limit expenditures "an per pupil will exceed cost free public education [by] comparable communities State"—and implementing regulation—which requires school schedules equal private sector do relieve ground proposed require pay teachers more than local civilian systems. In rejecting argument, relied requiring, "to extent inconsistent law," bargaining subject agency regulation "if has compelling need exists regulation," own declaring "compelling need" if, among other things, question implements mandate "essentially nondiscretionary nature." It cannot said equality requirement nature," since 241 mandates equivalence expenditure, each separate element educational cost. 653-657. 860 F.2d 396 (CA 11, 1988), SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. MARSHALL, filed concurring opinion, post, p. 657. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., petitioner. William E. Persina, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 case we review decision Schools, Government employer, labor union representing proposal 2 * (Union), collective-bargaining representative elementary Stewart, United States facility Georgia. here, 64 Stat. 1107, 241(a), Secretary Health Human Services "make such arrangements necessary provide education" children living property. present controversy arose when, during course negotiations, Union submitted mileage reimbursement, various types paid leave, increase. Petitioner matters, claiming they VII Civil Reform 1978, sometimes referred 5 7101 seq. Statute). sought aid pursuant §§ 7105(a)(2)(D) (E) negotiable. Assn. Educators, 28 F.L.R.A. 547 (1987). Upon petition cross-petitions enforcement Union, Eleventh Circuit upheld decision, (1988), granted certiorari, 493 807, 47, 107 16 (1989). II 3 good faith chosen 7114(a)(4), makes unfair practice refuse so, 7116(a)(5). scope negotiating obligation set forth 7102, confers right, through their representative, engage respect employment." 7102(2). Section 7103(a)(14) follows: 4 " 'conditions employment' means personnel policies, practices, established rule, regulation, otherwise, affecting conditions, except matters— "(A) activities subchapter III 73 title; 6 "(B) position; 7 "(C) ." 8 construing provisions, provisions issue case, statute charged implementing, see 7105. We must conclusions standard 694 (1984). If, examination "the particular language issue, well design whole," K mart Corp. Cartier, 486 281, 291, 108 1811, 1818, 100 313 clear interpretation incorrect, then look further, "for court, agency, give effect unambiguously expressed Congress." Chevron, U.S., S.Ct., 2781-2782. hand, silent ambiguous" point decide "whether agency's answer statute." Ibid. 9 concluded employment," following American Federation Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1897, 24 377, 379 (1986) (AFGE). F.L.R.A., 550-551. claims error because latter most naturally connotes labors," Brief 17. difficulty course, word "conditions" common meanings. can mean "established agreed requisite doing something else"; "attendant circumstances," "existing state affairs." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 473 (1961). Whereas 7102 seems us equally susceptible both meanings, correct defining refers, "circumstances" "state affairs" attendant one's performance job. See Department Dependents Schools FLRA, 274 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 301, 863 988, 990 (1988) ("The 'working conditions' ordinarily calls mind day-to-day circumstances performs his her job"), rehearing en banc granted, 87-1733 (Feb. 6, 1989). Even however, interpreted bear here forms part paragraph whose structure, whole, lends support broader reading. 10 As above, excepts (and thus suggests conditions") "policies, title." contains restrictions protects them being coerced activity. barely conceivable, unlikely, meant exclude somehow infect politics "physical workplace; much plausibly directed sense qualifications demanded of, obligations imposed upon, employees. And second exception 7103(a)(14), unquestionably assumes hence bears meaning. position" utterly unnecessary if correct. 11 argued, indeed technically unnecessary, inserted out abundance caution—a drafting imprecision venerable enough have left mark legal Latin (ex abundanti cautela ). But make argument. Indeed, reply brief "a serious distortion [its] position," Reply 2, characterize it, does, asserting "negotiations limited labors." 11. asserts contrary, "recognize[s] phrase doubt diverse interpretations," including whereby embrace "any continued (internal quotations omitted); acknowledges, apparent approval, "has been extended beyond purely workplace," ibid. textual argument abandoned. seeks persuade us, (as does) defined one, rather other, possible meanings; some ever conceived so includes insisted-upon prerequisites par excellence, new unheard-of contends, "unambiguously expressed," supra, 843, 2781, impose initially responsible statute, despite otherwise accorded Chevron. To describe position sufficient reject nonetheless examine briefly elements sets establish clearly nowhere else. 12 points Act, 49 449, amended, 29 151 seq., authorizes "wages, hours, terms 158(d), 39 1201 grants postal workers right conditions." Note 1201. Because refers wages, runs, infer absence reference Congress fields indication (perhaps) show used refer employment; that—but already conceded. 13 discusses great length culled formidable number certain members committees think A Senate Report, example, states unequivocally "[t]he bill permits unions collectively policies managers. economic matters. S.Rep. 95-969, pp. 12-13 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2734, 2735. House Report recounts "does permit H.R.Rep. 95-1403, (1978). like numerous floor sponsors opponents.1 14 trouble statements, our inquiry, wrong. overwhelming majority law, accordance General Schedules 5332, above—which "matters 7103(a)(14)(C). Employees miniscule minority operation Schedules. 241(a) provides fix compensation, tenure, hours work, incidents employment relationship" "without regard rules." AFGE, 378. materials display awareness many same sources points, (1978) ("Federal continue title 5, benefits, retirement, insurance, Congress"); id., 44 ("Rates overtime bargainable, statute").2 Thus, rested syllogism: statute; statute"; premise syllogism wrong, conclusion. conceivable persuasive reflect speakers' incomplete understanding world operate. Yellow Freight System, Donnelly, 494 820, 824, 1566, 1569, 834 (1990) (expectation Members suits tried "even universally shared," brought court). 15 next argues relate 7106, agency. 7106. rejected claim applying test 604 (1980), enf'd grounds sub nom. 212 256, 1140 (1981), cert. denied, 455 945, 102 1443, 71 658 (1982): "To directly interferes section 7106(a)(1) substantial showing program affected [sic: offset ] compensating benefits." 551 (emphasis added). 17 contend budget," made underscored standard. not, finding shown neither increased accept offered nor Id., 552. 18 parties dispute entity "agency" purposes determining "affect 7106(a). satisfied 7106(a) budget, i.e., base. noted "includes bases, troops, weapons, vehicles, equipment, salaries officers, expenses eight schools." F.2d, 405-406. cannot, uphold basis, sustained courts rationale factual determinations deference, itself. SEC Chenery Corp., 318 80, 93-95, 63 454, 461-463, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943). challenge, reversing determination assume without deciding 19 take 7106 nonnegotiable simply "imposes expenditure appropriated funds." 607. Rather, application FLRA's rule particularly calling 13.5% raise budget—is plainly flawed." 28. aspect rule—requiring benefits—is reasonable consistent negates management's observation force "compensating benefits" describes it. order prove given outweighed benefits," disprove monetary nonmonetary "intangible" positive effects change morale. Although counsel statement oral before Court, cases "benefits" side calculus embracing suggests. Fire Fighters F-61, 438, 452 (1980) (rejecting where demonstration performance, reduced turnover, fewer grievances like"). difficult how possibly derive measured speaks "authority understood allocation funds 21 dwell point, supported evidence. challenged costs, failed submit evidence case. asks hold necessarily "significant unavoidable" overall knowing rudimentary fact percentage attributable salaries. precedents, proof "significant[ly] unavoidabl[y]" increased.3 IV 22 Petitioner's final rests 241, thereunder "ensure arrangement State," "[t]o maximum practicable" 241(e). promulgated stating "will considered selected State" when specified factors, "[s]alary schedules" are, practicable, equal." Reg. 352-3, 1-7(h) (1980). claims—and discussion—that proposals, contravene 23 familiar administrative abide regulations. Vitarelli Seaton, 359 535, 547, 79 968, 976, 1012 (1959); Dulles, 354 363, 388, 77 1152, 1165, 1403 (1957). That says nothing, about compelled addressed 7117(a)(2), provides, insofar applicable shall, Government-wide subsection regulations prescribed Authority) regulation." (Emphasis added.) 7117(b) procedures determination, FLRA Aberdeen Proving Ground, Army, 485 409, 1261, 99 470 instructs "prescribe criteria" determination. Pursuant last adopted regulation: 25 "A concerning condition demonstrates meets illustrative criteria: 26 "(a) essential, distinguished helpful desirable, accomplishment mission execution functions manner requirements effective efficient government. 27 "(b) insure maintenance basic principles. "(c) outside authority, implementation essentially CFR 2424.11 Before Authority, entire assertion criteria Regulation 352-3 "implements mandate" 241(a). disagreed, Knox Teachers Assn., 203, 215, 216 (1987), match exactly districts" restrict Agency's discretion practices adopted." 30 "[s]ection comparison schools," 32, "[f]or purpose providing education," "may [General the] Act," According petitioner, "it fair reading [§ 241] excepted [wages benefits] civil service laws 33. so. All deduced exclusion expected adjust schools. able equal. ("[t]o practicable") An less expend needs program. impossible say equal" nature" 2424.11(c). 31 insists, strictly renders violation never law." 7117(a)(2); 7117(a)(1). recognize "only leaves absolutely room discretion," 33, n. 23, 7117(a)(2) nullity, "inconsistent law" anyway. assume, deciding, 2424.11(c) nondiscretionary" law. equivalency cases. See, e.g., 1119 Border Patrol 106 (1986); 1153, 505 eliminate ignores existence subsections 2424.11, alternative methods need." sure, chose assert either "essential agency," 2424.11(a) (1989), "necessary principles," 2424.11(b). But, alternatives available suffice there quite independent elimination 32 For foregoing reasons, judgment Affirmed. 33 concurring. 34 I write separately emphasize prerogative "determine 7106(a)(1), reasonably, perhaps necessarily, narrower Authority. presently interprets exempting prescribe allocated Govt. AFL-CIO (AFGE), 604, 608 (1981). read, withdrawing mandatory se, 35 stated formulating test, 'budget' financial body definite period time detailed estimates planned financing them." (citing (1966)). then, calculate advance programs operations. 608. exempts involve process This accords closely Congress' prerogatives construed narrowly. 124 Cong.Rec. 29183 (statement Rep. Udall, author 7106) (§ treated narrowly general employment"); 29187 Clay) ("[I]t essential integrally go rights barred negotiations"); committee intends favor whenever negotiability proposal"). 36 plain provision. part, best stretch language. Proposals "significant" "unavoidable" interfere operations allocate Such budgetary decisions, remove important altogether, intended 37 fall involvement process. negotiable cost" Court's foreclose future challenge test. Rec. 25716, 29182 (remarks Udall) ("We issues employee's livelihood") ("There really retirement"); 24286, 25720 ("[E]mployees still pay") ("I want assure my colleagues allows money-related benefits"); 27549 Sen. Sasser) ("[E]xclusive representatives benefits"). effect. 25721, 25722 Ford) ("[N]o governed (such pay, forth) altered negotiated agreement") ("It system retirement life insurance health workmen's compensation. Those become exclusively effect"); ("All major action"); 29174 Collins) (criticizing too broad excluded "matter[s] discrimination, activities, few law—for loses party challenges standard, reach discussed MARSHALL's viz., budget" generous Government.

Category: 6