Department of the Interior; Bureau of Reclamation; Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region; and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 951 (Authority decision, May 27, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the respondents’ request to reconsider an unfair labor practice ruling on travel advances and denies their stay request. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of a final Authority order by petitioning an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The Authority had found that the Interior Department and Bureau of Reclamation interfered with the Mid-Pacific Region’s duty to bargain by directing it to limit employee travel advances. The respondents requested reconsideration, arguing that travel advances were outside conditions of employment or were subject to a compelling agency regulation. The Authority found that these arguments repeated disagreement with its earlier decision and did not establish extraordinary circumstances. It denied reconsideration and a stay.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Unfair labor practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1) and (5); reconsideration under 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Reconsideration and stay denied; prior bargaining violation ruling stands.
• Key point: Rearguing whether travel advances were negotiable did not justify reconsideration.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p107 ]

27:0107(19)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 19

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D.C.

and

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WASHINGTON D.C.

and

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
Respondents

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 951
Charging Party

Case No. 9-CA-50283
(25 FLRA No. 6)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This case is before the Authority based on the Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and request for a stay in our decision in the above-entitled matter. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion and the stay request.

In our decision we determined that Respondent Department of the Interior and Respondent Bureau of Reclamation violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by interfering with the bargaining obligation of Respondent Mid-Pacific Region. Specifically, we found that Respondent Interior and Respondent Bureau interfered with the protected rights of the Region's employees by directing the Region to implement a limitation on travel advances that precluded it from fulfilling its obligation to bargain with the Union on a change in conditions of employment. In reaching this conclusion, we determined, based on the record before us, that the Union's proposal concerning travel advances was within the Region's duty to bargain. We rejected the Respondent's arguments that the proposal did not concern a matter affecting unit employees' conditions of employment under section 7103(a)(14)(C) of the Statute; that it concerned the methods and means of performing work under section 7106(b)(1), and was negotiable only at the election of the Agency; and that it was barred from negotiation by Agency regulations for which a compelling need exists under section 7117(a)(2).

In their motion for reconsideration, the Respondents contend that the Authority erroneously concluded that travel advances concern conditions of employment and do not constitute a "method and means" of performing the Agency's work. The Agency also contends that the Authority should have found that there is a "compelling need" for the Agency's regulations setting the amounts for travel advances in its cash management program.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Respondents have not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the arguments presented by the Respondents in support of their request constitute nothing more than disagreement with the merits of our decision.

Accordingly, the Respondents' request for reconsideration and request for a stay are denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., May 27, 1987.

/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY