AFGE Local 3525 and Justice Department Board of Immigration Appeals (Authority decision, September 15, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final Authority order. 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). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 3525 offered four proposals after the Board of Immigration Appeals moved 32 employees. The Authority held that a proposed shuttle between the main and satellite offices concerned employee working conditions and was within the duty to bargain. It dismissed review of three other proposals concerning parking and related relocation matters because their wording was too indefinite for a negotiability ruling. Bargaining was ordered on the shuttle proposal.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Shuttle proposal negotiable; petitions on Proposals 2 through 4 dismissed for lack of specificity.
• Key point: A concrete transportation proposal could be reviewed while indefinite proposals could not.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p61 ]

10:0061(17)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 17

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 3525
Union

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Agency

Case No. O-NG-171

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION
7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
(THE STATUTE). THE ISSUES PRESENTED CONCERN THE NEGOTIABILITY OF FOUR
UNION PROPOSALS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S RELOCATION OF 32
BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (BIA).
/1/

UNION PROPOSAL 1

LOCAL 3525 BELIEVES IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARD
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE PROVIDE A DAILY SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
INTERVALS BETWEEN THE MAIN

BUILDING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE PROPOSED NEW LOCATION
OF THE BOARD OF

IMMIGRATION APPEALS. SUCH SERVICE IS NECESSARY TO INSURE EMPLOYEE
ACCESS BOTH TO SERVICES OF

THE DEPARTMENT, SUCH AS THE CREDIT UNION AND THE HEALTH UNIT, AND TO
RESEARCH FACILITIES IN

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE IS ALSO NECESSARY TO
ENABLE EMPLOYEES TO REACH

THE NEW WORK LOCATION AS THE PRESENT METROBUS/METRORAIL SERVICE IS
CLEARLY INADEQUATE TO

INSURE THAT EMPLOYEES WILL BE ABLE TO REACH THEIR WORKPLACES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PRESENT

WORK SCHEDULES.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY

THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER, AS THE AGENCY CONTENDS, UNION PROPOSAL 1
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) /2/
AND SECTION 7106(B)(1) /3/ OF THE STATUTE; OR THE PROVISIONS OF 31
U.S.C. 638A(C)(2). /4/

OPINION

CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSAL 1 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
SECTION 7106(A)(1) OR SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE, OR 31 U.S.C.
638A(C)(2). ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST
(OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN ON THIS PROPOSAL.
/5/

REASONS: AS TO SECTION 7106(B)(1), THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE
PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE THE TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEES BY SHUTTLE BUS TO
AND FROM RESEARCH FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
DUTIES AND, THEREFORE, CONCERNS THE TECHNOLOGY, METHODS, AND MEANS OF
PERFORMING WORK. MANAGEMENT'S RESERVED AUTHORITY IN THIS CONNECTION
CONSISTS OF THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHICH TECHNOLOGY, METHODS, AND MEANS
WILL BE USED IN ACCOMPLISHING OR FURTHERING THE PERFORMANCE OF AN
AGENCY'S WORK. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2477 AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
(AND THE CASE CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH), 7 FLRA NO. 89(1982); NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION VIII, SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 2 FLRA 254(1979). THE AGENCY HEREIN HAS NOT
SHOWN, NOR DOES IT OTHERWISE APPEAR, HOWEVER, THAT TRANSPORTATION OF
EMPLOYEES AS PROPOSED BY THE UNION IS PRINCIPALLY RELATED TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE AGENCY'S WORK, I.E., ADMINISTERING IMMIGRATION LAWS
AND RULING UPON IMMIGRATION APPEALS. /6/ RATHER, THE AUTHORITY FINDS
THAT THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS A MATTER, I.E., TRANSPORTATION, WHICH
PRINCIPALLY AFFECTS WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE
ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY RELOCATION; SUCH TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE ONLY
INCIDENTAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE AGENCY'S WORK. AS THE AGENCY HAS
NOT SHOWN THAT THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
WORK, IT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPOSAL RELATES, AS IT CLAIMS, TO
MATTERS WHICH MAY BE NEGOTIATED ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY
PURSUANT TO SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.

AS TO SECTION 7106(A)(1), THE AGENCY CLAIMS THAT UNION PROPOSAL 1
CONFLICTS WITH ITS RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS "ORGANIZATION" ARGUING THAT IT
HAS NOT BEEN DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO PROCURE A MOTOR VEHICLE AS THE
PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE; RATHER, WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ),
SUCH AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED ONLY TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
ADMINISTRATION.

THIS AGENCY ARGUMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FINDING THAT THE
DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE IN
THAT IT DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT
WITH SECTION 7106(A)(1) OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION. SEE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3656 AND
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE, MASSACHUSETTS, 4 FLRA
NO. 92(1980). MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
CLAIM THAT THE PROPOSAL CONFLICTS WITH MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE
ITS ORGANIZATION BECAUSE SUCH SECTION DOES NOT RESERVE TO MANAGEMENT THE
RIGHT TO FORECLOSE BARGAINING ON AN OTHERWISE NEGOTIABLE MATTER BY
DELEGATING AUTHORITY AS TO THAT MATTER ONLY TO AN ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
ABOVE THE LEVEL OF RECOGNITION AND BARGAINING. RATHER, UNDER SECTION
7114(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE, AN AGENCY HAS THE OBLIGATION "TO BE
REPRESENTED AT THE NEGOTIATIONS BY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
PREPARED TO DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE ON ANY CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT . . .
." THUS, UNDER THE STATUTE, AN AGENCY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BARGAINING
WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, IS OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE
REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE EMPOWERED TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENT
ON ALL MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF NEGOTIATIONS. AFGE, LOCAL 3656, 4
FLRA NO. 92(1980).

FINALLY, THE AGENCY CLAIMS IN ESSENCE THAT THE PROPOSAL INSOFAR AS IT
WOULD PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO EMPLOYEES BY GOVERNMENT VEHICLE FROM A
POINT MIDWAY BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH 31 U.S.C. 638A(C)(2) BECAUSE IT WOULD PREVENT THE
VEHICLE FROM BEING USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES. THIS CLAIM
IS BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THAT SECTION WHICH IS MORE
RESTRICTIVE THAN REQUIRED. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SECTION 638A(C)(2),
AS APPLIED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, IS TO PREVENT THE USE OF
GOVERNMENT VEHICLES FOR THE PERSONAL CONVENIENCE OF EMPLOYEES. /7/
THUS, IF A VEHICLE IS USED FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES AS DETERMINED BY THE
AGENCY WITHIN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, TRANSPORTATION OF ANY OTHER
EMPLOYEES WHICH IS INCIDENT TO SUCH USE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 638A(C)(2). /8/ THAT IS, SECTION 638A(C)(2)
WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED WHERE TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE IN A
GOVERNMENT VEHICLE FROM A POINT MIDWAY BETWEEN HIS HOME AND PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT IS SUCH THAT HE MERELY ACCOMPANIES OTHER EMPLOYEES ON AN
ALREADY AUTHORIZED TRIP AND THAT THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION IS
DETERMINED TO BE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST, SUCH DETERMINATION BEING
WITHIN THE AGENCY'S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2272 AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 9 FLRA NO.
140(1982)(PROPOSAL 10). THE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE PROPOSED HEREIN WOULD
PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES, PRINCIPALLY ACCESS TO
SERVICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RESEARCH FACILITIES. UNDER
THE PROPOSAL, TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEES FROM A POINT BETWEEN THEIR
HOMES AND THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE INCIDENT TO THE AUTHORIZED
USE OF THE SHUTTLE BUS FOR OTHER PURPOSES. /9/ IF SUCH INCIDENT USE
WOULD BE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST, NEGOTIATION OF THE PROPOSAL,
CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION, WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH 31
U.S.C. 638A(C)(2). A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR USE IS
IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IS A MATTER WITHIN AN AGENCY'S
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND, HENCE, SUBJECT TO BARGAINING. /10/

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, UNION PROPOSAL 1 IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.

UNION PROPOSAL 2

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT MANAGEMENT INFORM THE UNION OF THE PARKING
FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT

THE PROPOSED NEW LOCATION OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS AT THE
EARLIEST POSSIBLE

TIME. IF PARKING IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR EVERY PERSON EMPLOYED BY THE
BOARD, OR IF THERE IS SOME

PARKING WHICH IS MORE DESIRABLE IN TERMS OF LOCATION OR COST, IT IS
NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AN

EQUITABLE SYSTEM, SUCH AS ONE BASED ON SENIORITY, FOR DETERMINING
WHICH PERSONS WILL HAVE

PARKING AVAILABLE TO THEM. ACCORDINGLY, WE REQUEST TO MEET AND
NEGOTIATE ON A SYSTEM OF

PARKING SPACE DISTRIBUTION.

UNION PROPOSAL 3

FOR SEVERAL EMPLOYEES OF THE BOARD, MANY OF WHOM HAVE DEVOTED MANY
YEARS TO GOVERNMENT

SERVICE AND TO SERVICE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE PROPOSED
RELOCATION OF THE BOARD TO

SUBURBAN VIRGINIA PRESENTS A DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TASK IN
REACHING THEIR PLACE OF

WORK EACH DAY. WE REQUEST TO MEET AND NEGOTIATE ON RELOCATION OF
JOBS FOR THESE PERSONS

WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

UNION PROPOSAL 4

THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE BOARD FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A
"HUB" IN TERMS OF PUBLIC

TRANSPORTATION TO A NORTHERN VIRGINIA SUBURB, MOSTLY INACCESSIBLE
EXCEPT BY AUTOMOBILE, HAS

THE POTENTIAL OF AN IMPERMISSIBLE IMPACT ON THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF
THE BOARD'S

EMPLOYEES. IT IS APPARENT THAT, AS JOBS OPEN UP IN THE NEW LOCATION
OF THE BOARD AT BAILEY'S

CROSSROADS, THE MAJORITY OF THE APPLICANTS FOR THOSE JOBS WILL BE
FROM THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA

AREA, AND WILL, IN ALL PROBABILITY, BE WHITE. WE REQUEST TO MEET AND
NEGOTIATE ON THE STEPS

TO BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD IN INSURING THAT THIS POTENTIAL IMPACT WILL
BE LESSENED BY AGGRESSIVE

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HIRING.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSALS 2, 3, AND 4 ARE SUFFICIENTLY
SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
MATTERS PROPOSED ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.

OPINION

CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSALS 2, 3, AND 4 ARE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ON
THEIR CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT
IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSALS 2, 3
AND 4 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

REASONS: UNION PROPOSAL 2 CONCERNS THE ALLOCATION OF PARKING SPACES
AMONG EMPLOYEES OF THE AGENCY. PROPOSALS REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
PARKING SPACES TO EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT ARE WITHIN THE DUTY
TO BARGAIN TO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, AND
REGULATIONS. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 6 AND INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, 3 FLRA 748(1980). ALTHOUGH THE
PROPOSAL, IN GENERAL TERMS, SEEKS TO ESTABLISH AN "EQUITABLE SYSTEM" OF
ALLOCATION, THE ONLY SPECIFIC CRITERION ADVERTED TO FOR SUCH ALLOCATION
IS A SYSTEM "SUCH AS SENIORITY." SINCE THE AUTHORITY IS UNABLE TO
ASCERTAIN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL OR THE RECORD AS A WHOLE HOW
CRITERIA SUCH AS SENIORITY WOULD APPLY UNDER THE PROPOSED SYSTEM, IT IS
NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

UNION PROPOSAL 3 ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS RELOCATION WITHIN DOJ FOR THOSE
PERSONS WHO FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TRAVEL TO THE NEW LOCATION OF THE
AGENCY. WITH RESPECT TO BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY A CHANGE OF LOCATION, PROPOSALS CONCERNING INITIAL AND
PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR VACANCIES IN THE AGENCY MAY BE WITHIN THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN; /11/ HOWEVER, PROPOSALS WHICH MANDATE THE SELECTION OF
SUCH EMPLOYEES FOR SPECIFIC VACANCIES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE
THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. /12/ IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AUTHORITY IS UNABLE
TO CONCLUDE WHETHER, FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL OR THE RECORD AS
A WHOLE, EITHER PRIORITY CONSIDERATION OR REASSIGNMENT RIGHTS FOR
AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IS INTENDED. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE
LAW OR REGULATIONS.

UNION PROPOSAL 4 GENERALLY SEEKS TO REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO TAKE
CERTAIN UNSPECIFIED STEPS TOWARD AGGRESSIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HIRING.
UNDER THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS FOUND PROPOSALS CONCERNING CERTAIN
MATTERS RELATING TO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY
TO BARGAIN; /13/ HOWEVER, OTHER PROPOSALS CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS HAVE
BEEN FOUND TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS SECTION OF THE
STATUTE. /14/ THE AUTHORITY IS UNABLE TO CONCLUDE FROM THE LANGUAGE OF
UNION PROPOSAL 4 OR FROM THE RECORD AS A WHOLE WHETHER THE INTENT AND
OPERATIVE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL IS TO MANDATE CERTAIN HIRING PRACTICES.
CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATIONS.

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY
ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A PROPOSAL SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND
DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER A
NEGOTIABILITY DECISION THEREON DOES NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW
SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.1 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS,
ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, 2 FLRA 313(1979). AS
ALREADY DISCUSSED, UNION PROPOSALS 2, 3, AND 4 DO NOT SET FORTH
PROPOSALS WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY AND SPECIFICITY TO ENABLE THE
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS,
RULES, OR REGULATIONS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES,
BASED UPON THE REASONS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS, THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 15, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ A FIFTH DISPUTED PROPOSAL INCLUDED IN THE UNION'S PETITION FOR
REVIEW WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE UNION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS CASE.

/2/ SECTION 7106(A)(1) PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

(A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE

AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--

(1) TO DETERMINE THE . . . ORGANIZATION . . . OF THE AGENCY(.)

/3/ SECTION 7106(B)(1) PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART THAT:

(B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION FROM

NEGOTIATING--

(1) AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY . . . ON THE TECHNOLOGY, METHODS,
AND MEANS OF PERFORMING

WORK(.)

/4/ 31 U.S.C. SEC. 638A(C)(2) PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART:

(C) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED, NO APPROPRIATION
AVAILABLE FOR ANY DEPARTMENT

SHALL BE EXPENDED--

. . . .

(2) FOR THE MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND REPAIR OF ANY
GOVERNMENT-OWNED PASSENGER MOTOR

VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT NOT USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES; AND
"OFFICIAL PURPOSES" SHALL

NOT INCLUDE THE TRANSPORTATION OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES BETWEEN
THEIR DOMICILES AND PLACES OF

EMPLOYMENT, EXCEPT IN CASES OF MEDICAL OFFICERS ON OUT-PATIENT
MEDICAL SERVICE AND EXCEPT IN

CASES OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FIELD WORK THE CHARACTER
OF WHOSE DUTIES MAKES SUCH

TRANSPORTATION NECESSARY AND THEN ONLY AS TO SUCH LATTER CASES WHEN
THE SAME IS APPROVED BY

THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED . . . .

/5/ IN DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE
AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO ITS MERITS.

/6/ SEE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MANUAL AT 353 (1981-82).

/7/ SEE 54 COMP.GEN. 1066, 1068(1975) (USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLE DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT OF 31 U.S.C. 638A(C)(2) WHERE USE IS DEEMED IN
GOVERNMENT INTEREST; CONTROL OVER USE PRIMARILY A MATTER OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY AGENCY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF
APPLICABLE LAWS).

/8/ SEE COMP.GEN. B-190440 (JANUARY 20, 1978) ISSUED IN CONNECTION
WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2814, AFL-CIO
AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 6
FLRC 323(1978).

/9/ FURTHER, THE RECORD HERE INDICATES THAT THE AGENCY HAS ALREADY
REQUESTED A SHUTTLE BUS FOR UNSPECIFIED PURPOSES.

/10/ SEE, E.G., NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 6 AND
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, 3 FLRA 748(1980). SEE
ALSO COMP. GEN. B-192258 (SEPT. 25, 1978) ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH
FEDERAL AVIATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 6 FLRC 723(1978).

/11/ SEE, E.G., AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 2782 AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WASHINGTON,
D.C., 6 FLRA NO. 56(1981); NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 7 FLRA NO. 42(1981) AT 3-11.

/12/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
2782 AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
7 FLRA NO. 13(1981), APPEAL DOCKETED SUB NOM. AFGE, LOCAL 2782 V. FLRA,
NO. 81-2386 (D.C. CIR. DEC. 29, 1981); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 987 AND HEADQUARTERS, WARNER ROBINS
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA, 8 FLRA NO.
116(1982).

/13/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR
FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA
603, 613(1980), ENFORCED SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 659 F.2D 1140 (D.C. CIR. 1871), CERT. DENIED SUB
NOM. AFGE V. FLRA, . . . U.S. . . . , 102 S.CT. 1443(1982).

/14/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
32 AND OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., 8 FLRA NO.
97(1982) (PROPOSAL IV).