Court Opinion

ID: 9482424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:49:41.413093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:58.850259
License: Public Domain

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Federal employees at the Robins Air Force Base in Georgia want to bargain about being compensated for the time, at the close of the workday, when they are delayed from departing due to the malfunctioning of a security gate. In the scheme of things, this is a relatively minor labor dispute. But it has given rise to a ruling with significant consequences for federal employees across the nation. Today’s decision bars these employees from engaging in collective bargaining to increase their overtime compensation beyond the bare minimum provided in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and threatens to abrogate any existing collective bargaining agreements having that effect. Because I believe the majority reaches this result by misreading government-wide regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), I respectfully dissent.
A bit of background on the Fair Labor Standards Act will be helpful. Passed in 1938, the FLSA “was designed to give specific minimum protections” to private sector employees. Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 1444, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981). The Act accomplishes this by guaranteeing covered employees a minimum wage and overtime compensation at “a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which” the individual is employed for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per “workweek.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). In 1947, in the wake of several Supreme Court decisions broadly interpreting “workweek,” Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 251-262, to clarify the scope of the FLSA’s overtime provisions. The Act relieved employers of liability under the FLSA for their failure to pay overtime compensation to employees engaged in “activities which are preliminary to or postlim-inary to [their] principal activity or activi-ties_” Id. § 254(a)(2). Reflecting the overall design of the FLSA, the portal-to-portal amendments expressly recognize that the parties may nevertheless provide, in a collective bargaining agreement, that employees will be paid for such preliminary and postliminary activities. Id. § 254(b)(1); see generally Carter v. Panama Canal Co., 463 F.2d 1289, 1292-94 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1012, 93 S.Ct. 441, 34 L.Ed.2d 306 (1972).
In 1974, the FLSA became generally applicable to federal employees. Congress gave OPM the authority to administer the FLSA, as amended, in the federal sector. 29 U.S.C. § 204(f). Pursuant to that authority, OPM promulgated the regulation at issue in this case, 5 C.F.R. § 551.412(b).
Section 551.412(b) provides:
A preparatory or concluding activity that is not closely related to the performance of the principal activities is considered a preliminary or postliminary activity. Time spent in preliminary or postliminary activities is excluded from hours of work and is not compensable, even if it occurs between periods of activity that are com-pensable as hours of work.
There is no dispute that the activity involved here — waiting at the gate to leave *454the Base — is “postliminary.” Whether the employees are nevertheless free to seek, through collective bargaining, more than the statute would entitle them to receive is another matter. If their doing so would be “inconsistent” with this regulation, the Air Force is relieved of any duty to bargain with them. 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1). The question then is what import should be attributed to the regulation’s words “excluded from hours of work and is not com-pensable.” Does this mean only “not com-pensable” under the FLSA, in which event the regulation sets minimum requirements and is not inconsistent with collective bargaining? Or does the regulation mean, as my colleagues suppose, “not compensable” under any circumstances?
To the majority the regulation is unambiguous because nothing in its text indicates that it establishes only minimum standards. This analysis not only begs the ultimate question in the case, but also assumes that the regulation can be accurately interpreted by examining the text in isolation. This is the technique of misinterpretation, an “unadorned ‘plain meaning’ approach,” as Judge Easterbrook described it, purporting to extract meaning from language without reference to the “linguistic, structural, functional, social, historical” context in which the words are used. In re Sinclair, 870 F.2d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir.1989); see Energy Research Found. v. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Bd., 917 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C.Cir.1990). To be sure, over time some phrases can acquire “a clearly accepted meaning in both legislative and judicial practice” so that when they appear in statutes or regulations they may be considered “unambiguous.” West Virginia Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 1147, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991). But the phrases in this regulation are not of that sort. The point may be illustrated by supposing that the Secretary of Labor had promulgated a regulation identical to OPM’s as part of her duty to administer the FLSA in the private sector. Not for a moment would anyone think the Secretary had thereby capped overtime compensation for private employees and, in the process, abrogated collective bargaining agreements providing more compensation than the law required. No one would entertain that idea because, as every employer and collective bargaining representative in this country surely knows, the FLSA sets forth only minimum levels of compensation. In other words, the regulation would be read in context, as regulations and statutes “must always be read,” McCarthy v. Bronson, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 1740, 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991).
The majority tells us that the regulation is worded in “categorical” terms. But even absolute language cannot be understood without determining the category to which it applies. “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech” is categorical, but its meaning is scarcely clear or self-evident, Justice Black to the contrary notwithstanding. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 60-68, 81 S.Ct. 997, 1011-16, 6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). Categorical or not, one still must determine if the regulation at issue applies only to the setting of minimum levels of compensation under the FLSA or has the broader sweep the majority attributes to it.
The point is that no matter how “plain” the words in the regulation may seem, it is a mistake to suppose that the meaning of the regulation itself is therefore also plain. Early in this century that misguided approach to interpretation was frequently taken. That it persists, here in the majority opinion, reminds one of the observation, recalled by Justice Frankfurter, that “ ‘a theory survives long after its brains are knocked out.’ ” Massachusetts Bonding Co. v. United States, 352 U.S. 128, 138, 77 S.Ct. 186, 191, 1 L.Ed.2d 189 (1956) (dissenting, quoting T.X. Huxley). The knockout, Justice Frankfurter thought, had been delivered by Justice Holmes in Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48, 49 S.Ct. 52, 53, 73 L.Ed. 170 (1921), and by Judge Learned Hand in Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608, 624 (2d Cir.1944) (concurring), aff'd sub nom. Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 244, 65 S.Ct. 605, 89 L.Ed. 921 (1945), where Judge Hand caustically observed “[tjhere is no *455surer way to misread any document than to read it literally_” In discussing these opinions, Judge Friendly added his own warning against the “potential for solipsistic decision inherent in the ‘plain meaning’ rule” when its use “shut[s] off access to the very materials that might show [a statute] not to have been plain at all.... ” Mr. Justice Frankfurter and the Reading of Statutes, in BENCHMARKS 206 (1967).
Here there are such materials, the most important of which are the underlying statutes, namely the FLSA as modified by the Portal-to-Portal Act. About the FLSA the majority has little to say, except that it is not deciding whether the regulation is consistent with it — which makes Judge Friendly’s point. Yet if ever there were a case in which a regulation must be construed in light of the statutes it implements,1 this is it. The regulations, OPM instructed, “must be read in conjunction with the [Act].” 5 C.F.R. § 551.101(c) (emphasis added). When one is faithful to this command, it becomes apparent that the majority’s interpretation cannot stand.
The fundamental consideration is that the FLSA sets only minimum standards, a floor, not the maximum amount an employer may agree to pay. In other words, employers may pay in excess of the minimum wage. Employees may bargain for more than time and a half for overtime. They may seek compensation for activities in addition to those for which the FLSA demands the payment of wages. As noted earlier, no private employer would be foolish enough to contend that the FLSA forbids additional compensation to employees, above the statutory minimum. The Portal-to-Portal Act explicitly recognizes that activities not compensable under the FLSA may nevertheless be made compensable by contract. 29 U.S.C. § 254(b)(1).
OPM knew this full well. Section 551.-101(b) of the regulations recognizes that “[t]he Act provides for minimum standards for both wages and overtime entitlements, and delineates administrative procedures by which covered worktime must be compensated.” 5 C.F.R. § 551.101(b). It is in this context that OPM “prescribed [regulations] for the administration of the Act.” Id. § 551.101(c). Under the majority’s interpretation, however, OPM would not be administering the FLSA whenever it invoked the regulation at issue. Rather than ordering an employer to pay the minimum compensation required by law, it would be prohibiting employees from seeking to be paid anything more. That contradicts not only the FLSA but also OPM’s express understanding of what it was doing when it formulated these regulations. To recognize this is not to give the regulation an interpretation in order to avert a conflict with the statute, as the majority asserts in its footnote citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 841, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 3251, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986), nor is it to employ a variant of the canon of construing to avoid constitutional doubts. It is simply to consider the regulatory language in its statutory setting.
Professors Hart and Sacks suggested that “an essential part of the context of every statute is its purpose” and that “[a]ny judicial opinion ... which finds a plain meaning in a statute without consideration of its purpose, condemns itself.” H. Hart & A. Saoks, The Legal Prooess: Basic Problems in the Making and Applioation of Law 1156-57 (tent. ed. 1958). Here, the majority breathes not a word about the purpose of the regulation at issue. The only conceivable one consistent with the majority’s construction is that OPM set out to put a lid on the amount of overtime pay employees might otherwise wind up getting through negotiation. But there is not even *456a hint, in the regulations or elsewhere, that OPM had any such objective in mind. See Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158, 110 S.Ct. 997, 1001, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990). If we take OPM at its word, and we must, the only purpose of the regulation was to implement the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA.
I am therefore left with the firm conclusion that when OPM stated in section 551.-412(b) that time spent in postliminary activities shall be “excluded from hours of work and is not compensable,” it meant “not compensable” under the FLSA, as amended. This interpretation is further strengthened by section 551.401, a provision entitled “Basic Principles.” 5 C.F.R. § 551.401. One of these basic principles is that “[t]ime that is considered hours of work under this part shall be used only to determine an employee’s entitlement to minimum wages or overtime pay under the Act....” Id. § 551.401(d) (emphasis added). This case presents the mirror image — time that is not “hours of work” under the regulations shall be so considered only “to determine an employee’s entitlement to minimum wages or overtime pay under the Act.” This takes on additional significance in light of the original version of the regulation at issue. When it first appeared in 1980, the regulation simply said that “a preliminary or postliminary activity ... is not considered hours of work,” 45 Fed.Reg. 85,659, 85,664 (1980), to which the basic principle of section 551.401(d) would have required adding “under the Act.” OPM appended the phrase “and is not compensa-ble” in 1983, but gave no clue that it meant to change the substance of the regulation. Instead, it announced that it was merely altering the existing regulations in order to “simplify pay administration” and to “integrate the provisions of civil service laws with those of the Fair Labor Standards Act.” 48 Fed.Reg. 36,803, 36,803 (1983). It is little wonder that in the face of that announcement the amendment caused scarcely a stir.
True enough, as the majority points out, OPM responded to the few comments it did receive by saying that “the final regulations specify that only time actually spent performing compensable ... postshift activities is creditable as hours of work and that in no case is credit allowed for a nonwork activity performed ... after an employee’s principal activities.” Id. at 36,-803-04. The majority emphasizes the “only” and the “in no case,” as if this advances its position. It does not. Those words only show that OPM meant its regulations to apply categorically. As discussed above, the categorical nature of the language tells little about the category itself. “Hours of work,” to which OPM referred, must be read in conjunction with the “basic principle” of section 551.401(d) to mean “hours of work ... to determine an employee’s entitlement to minimum wages or overtime pay under the Act.” 5 C.F.R. § 551.401(d) (emphasis added).
In short, the majority’s interpretation of section 551.412(b) cannot be reconciled with the FLSA, it is inconsistent with OPM’s stated purpose for promulgating the regulations, and it cannot be squared with the principles OPM thought basic to its administration of the statute. The FLSA does not bar employees from receiving compensation for any time not covered by the FLSA, and it does not permit employers, public or private, to avoid collective bargaining by setting the maximum level of compensation at the federally-prescribed minimum. Neither does section 551.-412(b).2

. E.g., Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 213-14, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1391, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976); Secretary of Labor v. Western Fuels-Utah, Inc., 900 F.2d 318, 320 (D.C.Cir.1990); La Vallee Northside Civic Ass'n v. Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Comm’n, 866 F.2d 616, 623 (3d Cir.1989); Campesinos Unidos, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 803 F.2d 1063, 1069 (9th Cir.1986); Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 744 F.2d 1411, 1414 (10th Cir.1984); Jochum v. Pico Credit Corp. of Westbank, Inc., 730 F.2d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir.1984); Insurance Co. of North America v. Gee, 702 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir.1983); Trustees of Indiana Univ. v. United States, 618 F.2d 736, 739, 223 Ct.Cl. 88 (1980).

. I express no view on whether 5 C.F.R. § 550.-112(b)(2), promulgated under the Federal Employees Pay Act and mentioned by the majority in a footnote, precludes collective bargaining over compensation for postliminary and preliminary activities. Although the Federal Labor Relations Authority observed that absent the FLSA, this regulation would be inconsistent with such bargaining, the Authority did not in fact find any such inconsistency. AFGE, Local 987 and U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 37 F.L.R.A. (No. 13) 197, 210 (1990). Furthermore, it is not clear *457that § 550.112(b)(2) still applies to the employees at Robins Air Force Base. The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 seems to indicate that the FLSA alone now governs overtime pay for employees like those at the Base. Pub.L. No. 101-509, tit. V, 104 Stat. 1427, 1460 (1990) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5542(c)). Finally, I see no necessary conflict between §§ 550.112(b)(2) and 551.412(b). OPM issued these nearly identically-worded regulations simultaneously for the stated purpose of simplifying pay administration, not complicating it by creating conflicting schemes. 48 Fed. Reg. 36,803, 36,805 (1983). (I would also think that our decision in Carter v. Panama Canal Co., 463 F.2d at 1300, 1303 & n. 40, requires us to construe the Federal Employees Pay Act, and the regulations implementing it, in light of Congress’ policy of extending privileges to federal employees comparable to those enjoyed by employees covered by the FLSA.)