National Association of Agriculture Employees and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (Authority decision, November 19, 1993)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies reconsideration of its negotiability ruling and ends this proceeding before it. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), an aggrieved party generally has 60 days from issuance to seek judicial review of a covered final order. A review petition does not stay the order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The union proposed paying plant protection and quarantine officers for eight hours of scheduled Sunday overtime even when they worked fewer hours. The Authority had found the proposal inconsistent with the statute governing those officers' overtime pay. Seeking reconsideration, the union argued that the Authority had relied on a statute the parties had not raised and had overlooked general scheduling rules. The Authority found that the union itself had cited the specific overtime statute and that the general rule did not cover these inspection services. It denied reconsideration, leaving the nonnegotiability ruling in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Overtime pay under 7 U.S.C. § 2260; reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Union's motion for reconsideration denied; proposal remains nonnegotiable.
• Key point: The specific inspection-service overtime statute governed instead of the general scheduling regulation.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v48 p914 ]
48:0914(97)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

48 FLRA No. 97

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURE EMPLOYEES

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

PLANT PROTECTION AND QUARANTINE

(Agency)

0-NG-2134

(48 FLRA 639 (1993))

_____

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

November 19, 1993

_____

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a motion filed by the Union under section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the Union's petition for review in National Association of Agriculture Employees and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 48 FLRA 639 (1993) (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). The Agency did not file an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's motion for reconsideration.

II. The Decision in 48 FLRA 639

In Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, we found that the Union's proposal, which required the Agency to pay employees overtime compensation for 8 hours of scheduled Sunday overtime in circumstances where they do not actually perform 8 hours' work, was inconsistent with 7 U.S.C.
§ 2260.

Accordingly, we found that the Union's proposal was nonnegotiable.

III. Motion for Reconsideration

The Union claims that reconsideration of our decision is warranted because the Authority erroneously relied on 7 U.S.C. § 2260, which "neither party mentioned . . . [or] relied upon, in its filings[,]" and because the decision conflicts with 5 U.S.C. § 6101(a) and its implementing regulations. Motion for Reconsideration at 2.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a decision or order of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances in this case.

Contrary to the Union's contention, the applicability of 7 U.S.C.
§ 2260 was raised by the Union in its own filings before the Authority. The Union specifically stated that "the overtime pay of [Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)] officers is governed by 7 U.S.C. § 2260, 7 CFR § 354, and the implementing Agency Directive, AD 402.3." Reply Brief at 8. As the Union's proposal involves overtime pay, and 7 U.S.C. § 2260 governs the overtime pay of PPQ officers, that provision applies to this proposal.

We also reject the Union's claim that our decision conflicts with 5 U.S.C. § 6101 and 5 C.F.R. § 610.121. Put simply, 5 C.F.R. § 610.121 does not apply to the overtime services performed by PPQ officers. In this regard, 5 C.F.R. § 610.121, applies to those employee to whom subpart A of 5 C.F.R. § 550 applies. See 5 C.F.R. § 610.101. Subpart A of 5 C.F.R. part 550, entitled Premium Pay, specifically excludes from its coverage the overtime services of the PPQ officers. See 5 C.F.R. § 550.101(d)(9).(*) Accordingly, the Union's reliance on 5 C.F.R. § 610.121, and cases interpreting it, is misplaced.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the Union has not established the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of our decision in 48 FLRA 639. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's motion.

V. Order

The Union's motion for reconsideration is denied.

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

*/ 5 C.F.R. § 550.101(d)(9)
provides in pertinent part:

(d) This subpart does not apply to overtime, night, or holiday services for which additional pay is provided by the act of:

. . . .

(9) August 28, 1950 (64 Stat. 561; 7 U.S.C. 2260), involving employees of the Department of Agriculture performing inspection or quarantine services relating to imports into and exports from the United States.