National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 951 (Union) and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento, CA (Agency) (Authority decision, July 31, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. This negotiability order ends the petition before the Authority. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review in a court of appeals within 60 days of issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

A Reclamation Bureau union proposed duty time for several kinds of union-sponsored training. The Authority found sections for general employee education, union officers, and recognized stewards negotiable. It rejected a separate provision granting extra time only to union members because an exclusive representative must serve all unit employees without regard to membership.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7114(a)(1), 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Three training provisions found negotiable; member-only provision rejected.
• Key point: A training benefit limited to union members conflicted with equal representation duties.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v03 p884 ]

03:0884(128)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

3 FLRa No. 128

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 951
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-146

DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. SECS. 7101=7135).

UNION PROPOSAL /1/

ARTICLE II-- UNION-SPONSORED TRAINING

SECTION 8. THE BUREAU WILL ALLOW THE FOLLOWING DUTY TIME, WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE

SUPERVISOR.

A. FOR EACH EMPLOYEE, 8 HOURS PER YEAR FOR EDUCATION.

B. FOR EACH UNION MEMBER, AN ADDITIONAL 8 HOURS PER YEAR FOR
GRIEVANCE AND OTHER TRAINING.

C. FOR EACH UNION OFFICER, AN ADDITIONAL 16 HOURS PER YEAR FOR
ADVANCED GRIEVANCE

TRAINING.

D. OFFICERS AND STEWARDS RECOGNIZED BY MANAGEMENT WILL BE GRANTED
EXCUSED LEAVE TO ATTEND

OFF PREMISE UNION SPONSORED TRAINING. REQUESTS FOR SUCH EXCUSED LEAVE
MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE

REGIONAL PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT OFFICER AS FAR IN ADVANCE AS
PRACTICAL BUT IN ANY EVENT NOT

LATER THAN 5 WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE TRAINING SESSION.

QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY

THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH
ANY APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT-WISE RULE OR REGULATION AND WHETHER SECTION
8(B) OF THE PROPOSAL VIOLATES SECTIONS 7114(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, /2/ AS
ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.

OPINION

CONCLUSION: SECTION 8(A), (C) AND (D) OF THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL DOES
NOT VIOLATE ANY GOVERNMENT-WISE RULE OR REGULATION. SECTION 8(B) OF THE
SUBJECT PROPOSAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONFLICTS WITH SECTION 7114(A)(1)
OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, (5 C.F.R. SEC. 2424.10 (1980), THE
AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART. /3/

REASONS: THE AGENCY ASSERTS THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S RULINGS REGARDING THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR
UNION-SPONSORED TRAINING. /4/ MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE AGENCY CONTENDS
THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISIONS "CONFINE THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME
TO EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES AND (DO) NOT AUTHORIZE SUCH TIME FOR
BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS UNLESS JOINTLY SPONSORED BY BOTH MANAGEMENT AND
UNION." FURTHER, IT MAINTAINS THAT THE "PROPOSAL WHICH PROVIDES FOR 32
HOURS OF UNION-SPONSORED TRAINING IS IN CLEAR CONFLICT WITH THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S DECISION," AND "SECTION 8(D) WHICH HAS NO LIMITS
FOR OFFICERS AND STEWARDS USE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR UNION-SPONSORED
TRAINING WOULD BE SIMILARLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S
DECISION." THE AGENCY'S CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISIONS DO NOT PLACE AN ABSOLUTE LIMIT ON THE
AMOUNT OF OFFICIAL TIME AUTHORIZED FOR UNION-SPONSORED TRAINING.
RATHER, THEY ESTABLISH BROAD GUIDELINES FOR AGENCIES TO USE IN GRANTING
SUCH LEAVE TO AFFORD REASONABLE FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AS FOLLOWS:

"WE HAVE FURTHER AGREED THAT IF IT ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT A
SESSION CONDUCTED BY

AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION IS DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO ADVISE, ORIENT, AND
BRIEF EMPLOYEE

REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING SUCH MATTERS, (STATUTORY OR REGULATORY
PROVISIONS RELATING TO PAY,

WORKING CONDITIONS, WORK SCHEDULES, EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE,
PERFORMANCE RATING, ADVERSE

ACTION APPEALS, AS WELL AS AGENCY POLICY AND NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS
PERTAINING THERETO) NEITHER

OUR OFFICE NOR THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WOULD INTERPOSE ANY
OBJECTION TO THE AGENCY,

WITHIN ITS DISCRETION, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WHILE SO
ATTENDING.

ALSO, IT HAS BEEN AGREED THAT AN AGENCY PROPERLY MAY GRANT
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ONLY FOR

SUCH SHORT PERIODS OF TIME-- ORDINARILY NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT HOURS--
THAT ARE REASONABLE UNDER

THE CIRCUMSTANCES." (COMP. GEN. B-156287, JULY 12, 1966)

IN 1977, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WAS ASKED TO RECONSIDER THIS EARLIER
RULING, IN VIEW OF THE BURGEONING LABOR RELATIONS FIELD. IT RULED,
HOWEVER, THAT:

"(T)HE GUIDANCE IN OUR 1966 DECISION WAS DELIBERATELY STATED IN
NONFINITE TERMS SO AS TO

PROVIDE AGENCIES WITH FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE MYRIAD
SITUATIONS THEY FACE AS A RESULT

OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS. WHILE
THE MAJORITY OF AGENCIES

WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING MORE THAN 8 HOURS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE PER YEAR FOR

EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND UNION-SPONSORED TRAINING, WE
RECOGNIZE THAT SOME AGENCIES

MUST HAVE LIMITED AUTHORITY TO EXCEED THIS GUIDELINE BY REASONABLE
AMOUNTS OF

TIME." (COMP. GEN. B-156287, FEBRUARY 28, 1977)

IN VIEW OF THE DISCRETION WHICH AGENCIES MAY EXERCISE UNDER THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S RULINGS, AND NOTING THAT THE RULINGS CONTAIN NO
SPECIFIC PROHIBITION WITH RESPECT TO OFFICIAL TIME FOR UNION-SPONSORED
TRAINING FOR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE DISPUTED
PROPOSAL DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR
REGULATION.

AS TO SECTION 8(B) OF THE PROPOSAL, IT WOULD PROVIDE BENEFITS TO
MEMBERS NOT PROVIDED TO NON-MEMBERS, I.E., AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF
OFFICIAL TIME TO BE AUTHORIZED ON THE BASIS OF UNION MEMBERSHIP ALONE.
SECTION 7114(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE MANDATES THAT AN EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF ALL
EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT IT REPRESENTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND WITHOUT
REGARD TO LABOR ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP. THE PROPOSAL IS, THEREFORE,
NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.

ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT SECTION 8(B) OF THE
PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 31, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

/1/ THE PROPOSAL IS AS SET FORTH BY THE AGENCY IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE
NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL.

/2/ SECTION 7114(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

(A)(1) A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCORDED EXCLUSIVE
RECOGNITION IS THE EXCLUSIVE

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT IT REPRESENTS AND IS
ENTITLED TO ACT FOR, AND

NEGOTIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS COVERING, ALL EMPLOYEES IN
THE UNIT. AN EXCLUSIVE

REPRESENTATIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF ALL
EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT IT

REPRESENTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND WITHOUT REGARD TO LABOR
ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP.

/3/ IN SO DECIDING THAT SECTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL ARE WITHIN
THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF
THE PROPOSAL.

/4/ COMP. GEN. B-156287, JULY 12, 1966;

COMP. GEN. B-156287, SEPTEMBER 15, 1976;

COMP. GEN. B-156287, FEBRUARY 28, 1977; AND

COMP. GEN.B-156287, MARCH 23, 1977.