NTEU Chapter 224 and Social Security Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals (Authority decision, April 21, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority modifies an arbitration award about union negotiators' travel claims. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), ordinary judicial review is generally unavailable for an order concerning an arbitration award unless it involves an unfair labor practice under § 7116; this decision does not decide one.

Plain-English summary

Two NTEU representatives sought travel and per diem expenses for a one-day negotiation session requested by the Social Security Administration's Office of Hearings and Appeals. An arbitrator found that the parties' agreement required payment and that the Travel Expense Act did not require a separate agency head certification for this negotiated obligation. The Authority agreed that the agreement could establish the agency's decision to treat negotiation travel as official business. It modified the award because it did not expressly provide for review of the individual claims under the Federal Travel Regulations. The representatives remained entitled to payment only insofar as their expenses complied with those rules.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Travel Expense Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5701 et seq., and Federal Travel Regulations.
• Outcome: Grievance sustained; reimbursement limited to expenses allowed by federal travel rules.
• Key point: A negotiated travel payment duty does not eliminate review of each claimed expense under the Federal Travel Regulations.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v21 p384 ]

21:0384(49)AR

The decision of the Authority follows:

21 FLRA No. 49

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 224
Union

and

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Activity

Case No. 0-AR-875

DECISION

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of Arbitrator Bernard Cushman filed by the Activity under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD

The Union filed a grievance in this case alleging that the Activity violated Article 22, Section 4 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement by refusing to pay the travel and per diem expenses of the chapter president and chief steward for attendance at a one-day negotiation session in Arlington, Virginia, held at the request of the Activity. The Arbitrator noted that Article 22 of the parties' agreement pertinently provides that "(t)he Employer shall pay travel and per diem costs incurred by the employee negotiators unless a statute or court order mandates otherwise." The Arbitrator further noted that the president had claimed expenses of $663.60 and the steward had claimed expenses of $75.02 and that the Activity had denied the claims. In denying the claims the Activity took the position that after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89 (1983), payment of travel and per diem expenses was not required under the parties' agreement provision and that under the Travel Expense Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5701 et seq., payment was precluded because there had been no specific agency head certification that the travel served the convenience of the agency or was otherwise in the primary interest of the Government. The Arbitrator, however, rejected the Activity's position. He found that the requirement of the parties' agreement to pay travel and per diem expenses was unaffected by the decision in BATF. He further found that payment of the expenses was not precluded by the lack of a specific agency head certification that the disputed travel served the convenience of the agency. In this regard he essentially concluded that consistent with the decision in BATF, the parties' agreement constituted the determination by the Activity that travel attendant to representing an exclusive representative in negotiations is sufficiently within the interest of the United States so as to constitute official business. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance and, in doing so, in effect found that management was obligated to pay the grievants' travel and per diem expenses for attendance at the negotiation session in question.

III. EXCEPTION

As its exception the Activity contends that the award is contrary to law, specifically, the Travel Expense Act. In support of this exception, the Activity essentially repeats its position before the Arbitrator by arguing that payment of the travel and per diem expenses is precluded by the Travel Expense Act because there had not been a specific agency head certification that the travel was performed in the primary interest of the Government.

IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Authority finds that the Agency's exception fails to establish that the Arbitrator's award is contrary to the Travel Expense Act. The agreement provision enforced by the Arbitrator is essentially the same as the proposal found by the Authority to be within the duty to bargain in National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 21 FLRA No. 2 (1986). In that decision the Authority pertinently ruled that provisions of the Travel Expense Act do not prohibit an agency from exercising through negotiations the discretion which it possesses to determine whether travel attendant to labor-management relations activities is sufficiently within the interest of the United States so as to constitute official business for purposes of reimbursement of appropriate travel expenses. Id. at 6. As has been noted, the Arbitrator in this case similarly found that the parties' agreement provision as to the payment of travel and per diem expenses constituted the determination by the Activity that travel attendant to representing an exclusive representative in negotiations is sufficiently within the interest of the United States so as to constitute official business. Thus, in view of the Authority's decision in U.S. Customs Service, no basis is provided for finding the award deficient as alleged by the Activity.

In finding the proposal in U.S. Customs Service to be within the duty to bargain, however, the Authority concluded that the proposal would not require the agency to authorize the payment of expenses which do not comport with regulatory requirements and restrictions. Id. at 6. The Authority based its conclusion on the union's acknowledgment that payment of any travel expenses flowing from the proposal, if agreed upon by the parties, would be subject to the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulations (FTRs). /*/ In this case, the Arbitrator in directing that the claimants are entitled to payments for travel and per diem expenses for attendance at the negotiation session has not expressly addressed whether the claimants are to be authorized and paid the full amount of their respective claims and has not expressly provided for agency determinations regarding the propriety under the FTRs of those respective claims. Consequently, the Authority must modify the award to assure that it is consistent with the requirements of the FTRs.

V. DECISION

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2425.4 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and for the reasons stated above, the award is modified to provide as follows:

The grievance is sustained. The claimants are entitled to payment of their travel and per diem expenses for attendance at the negotiation session in question insofar as consistent with applicable requirements of the Federal Travel Regulations.

Issued, Washington, D.C. April 21, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES

(*) The FTRs, 41 CFR part 101-7, have been held to be Government-wide rules or regulations within the meaning of the Statute. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City, Missouri, 13 FLRA 23, 24 (1983).