American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3884 and Veterans Administration Medical and Regional Office Center, Fargo (Authority decision, October 27, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. After a court remand, the Authority concludes that the VA had no duty to bargain over the disputed nurses' leave proposals and dismisses the union's petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 3884 proposed terms governing leave use by nurses at the Fargo VA medical center. The Authority had earlier found one proposal negotiable and another nonnegotiable. A federal appeals court then held that the VA Administrator's authority under 38 U.S.C. § 4108(a) displaced the asserted bargaining duty for professional medical staff working conditions. On remand, the Authority found both proposals concerned those employees' leave conditions and dismissed the petition in full.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: VA medical staff conditions under 38 U.S.C. § 4108(a).
• Outcome: Petition on both nurses' leave proposals dismissed.
• Key point: Under the cited court ruling, the VA had no bargaining duty over these nurses' leave conditions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v33 p409 ]
33:0409(54)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

33 FLRA No. 54

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 3884

AFL-CIO

and

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL

AND REGIONAL OFFICE
CENTER

FARGO, ND

0-NG-1388

(30 FLRA 10)

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES ON
REMAND

October 27, 1988

Before Chairman Calhoun and Member
McKee.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Veterans Administration Medical & Regional Office Center, Fargo, North Dakota v. FLRA, No. 88-1010 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 27, 1988). The court granted the Authority's motion to remand the case to allow the Authority to further consider its decision in light of the court's decision in Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA, 851 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

II. Background

On November 10, 1987, the Authority issued its decision and order on negotiability issues in American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3884, AFL-CIO and Veterans Administration Medical and Regional Office Center, Fargo, ND, 30 FLRA 10 (1987) (VAMC, Fargo). The collective bargaining proposals at issue in VAMC, Fargo concerned the leave use of nurses in the Department of Medicine and Surgery (DM&S).

The Veterans Administration (VA) contended that the proposals were not subject to the duty to bargain under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) because title 38 of the United States Code provides the Administrator of the VA with statutory authority to regulate conditions of employment of professional medical employees in the DM&S. Based on its decision in Colorado Nurses Association and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Ft. Lyons, Colorado, 25 FLRA 803 (1987) (VAMC, Ft. Lyons), the Authority found that the Statute applies to DM&S employees and that the VA has a duty to bargain over the conditions of employment of those employees. As to the specific proposals in dispute, the Authority found one to be negotiable and the other to be nonnegotiable.

Both the Colorado Nurses Association and the Veterans Administration petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the Authority's decision in VAMC, Ft. Lyons. The court reversed the Authority's ruling that the VA is obligated to bargain over conditions of employment of DM&S employees and concluded that the VA need not bargain over any of the contested proposals. Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA, 851 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The court found that the Statute's authorization of collective bargaining over conditions of employment for those employees conflicts with the authority of the VA Administrator under 38 U.S.C. § 4108(a). Section 4108(a) provides that "[n]otwithstanding any law, Executive order, or regulation" the VA Administrator "shall prescribe by regulation the hours and conditions of employment and leaves of absence of" DM&S professional employees. The court stated that "[i]n enacting section 4108, Congress intended to give the Administrator unfettered discretion to issue regulations concerning the working conditions of DM & S employees." Id. at 1492.

On September 6, 1988, the Authority petitioned the court for the remand of cases involving DM&S employees of the VA, including VAMC, Fargo, which the court had held in abeyance pending its resolution of Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA. The Authority asked that the cases be remanded "for disposition in the first instance" consistent with that decision and "to resolve any issues which may remain in the instant case in light of [the] Court's decision in Colorado Nurses Ass'n v. FLRA." FLRA Motion for Remand at 2 (footnote omitted). On September 27, 1988, the court granted the Authority's motion and remanded the cases to the Authority. Veterans Administration Medical & Regional Office Center, Fargo, North Dakota v. FLRA, No. 88-1010 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 27, 1988).

III. Discussion

Based on the rationale and conclusions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, we find that, under 38 U.S.C. § 4108(a), the VA has no obligation to bargain over the conditions of employment of professional medical employees of the DM&S. We have reexamined the proposals at issue in VAMC, Fargo and have determined that all of the proposals concern conditions of employment of DM&S employees whose conditions of employment are within the discretion of the VA Administrator under 38 U.S.C. § 4108(a). In light of the court's decision in Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA, we conclude that the VA has no obligation to bargain over the proposals. Accordingly, consistent with the court's decision in Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA, we will dismiss the petition for review as to those proposals.

IV. Order

The petition for review in 30 FLRA 10 is
dismissed.

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)