National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service (Authority decision, August 3, 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

After the IRS planned to move a computer software section from Washington to Martinsburg, NTEU proposed reimbursing employees who kept commuting from their current homes. The Authority held that ordinary travel between home and the official duty station was a personal expense, not reimbursable government travel under federal law. It dismissed the petition on the merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 5704.
• Outcome: Commuting reimbursement proposal held nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The proposal conflicted with federal limits on mileage reimbursement.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v09 p726 ]

09:0726(88)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

9 FLRA No. 88

NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES UNION
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Agency

Case No. O-NG-459

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL
SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) AND RAISES THE
QUESTION OF THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING UNION PROPOSAL.

UNION PROPOSAL

EMPLOYEES ELECTING TO COMMUTE FROM THEIR PRESENT ADDRESS SHALL BE
REIMBURSED FOR COMMUTING

EXPENSES.

UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING
DETERMINATIONS. THE DISPUTE AROSE WHEN THE AGENCY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF
ITS INTENT TO MOVE ITS COMPUTER SOFTWARE SECTION FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.,
TO THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER IN MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA. IN
RESPONSE, THE UNION SUBMITTED THE INSTANT PROPOSAL, AMONG OTHERS,
PROVIDING THAT EMPLOYEES ELECTING TO COMMUTE TO THE NEW LOCATION FROM
THEIR PRESENT ADDRESSES WOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR COMMUTING EXPENSES.

REIMBURSEMENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR MILEAGE EXPENSES IS GOVERNED
BY 5 U.S.C. 5704 (1980). THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR MILAGE ONLY IF THEY ARE "ENGAGED ON
OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT." /1/ THIS SECTION PRECLUDES AN
AGENCY FROM REIMBURSING-- I.E., DOES NOT AUTHORIZE AN AGENCY TO
REIMBURSE-- AN EMPLOYEE FOR MILEAGE UNLESS THAT EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN
ACTIVITIES WHICH CONSTITUTE "OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT." WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE, /2/ IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED
THAT TRAVEL BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AND HIS OR HER DUTY STATION
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF 5 U.S.C. 5704. /3/ THAT IS, EMPLOYEES MUST BEAR THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY
STATION. SUCH EXPENSES ARE PERSONAL TO EMPLOYEES AND MAY NOT BE
CONSIDERED AS INCURRED IN OFFICIAL TRAVEL. THUS, THE PROPOSED
REQUIREMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN COMMUTING FROM
HOME TO WORK IS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW AND IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE. SEE SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.

ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10 (1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION FOR
REVIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. /4/
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 3, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ 5 U.S.C. 5704 PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

SEC. 5704. MILEAGE AND RELATED ALLOWANCES

(A) UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 5707 OF THIS TITLE, AN
EMPLOYEE WHO IS

ENGAGED ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO NOT IN
EXCESS OF--

(1) 11 CENTS A MILE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED MOTORCYCLE;

(2) 20 CENTS A MILE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE; OR

(3) 24 CENTS A MILE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED AIRPLANE;
INSTEAD OF ACTUAL EXPENSES

OF TRANSPORTATION WHEN THAT MODE OF TRANSPORTATION IS AUTHORIZED OR
APPROVED AS MORE

ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. A DETERMINATION OF SUCH ADVANTAGE IS
NOT REQUIRED WHEN

PAYMENT ON A MILEAGE BASIS IS LIMITED TO THE COST OF TRAVEL BY COMMON
CARRIER INCLUDING PER

DIEM . . . .

/2/ SEE, E.G., 36 COMP.GEN. 450, 453 (1956, 55 COMP.GEN. 1323, 1328
(1976); MATTER OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MEAT GRADERS, COMPTROLLER
GENERAL DECISION B-131810 (JANUARY 3, 1978).

/3/ SEE, E.G., 36 COMP.GEN. 450, 452-53 (1956); 55 COMP.GEN. 1323,
1327 (1976); MATTER OF CARL P. MAYER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION
B-171969.42 (JANUARY 9, 1976); MATTER OF JOHN B. CLYDE, COMPTROLLER
GENERAL DECISION B-195421 (FEBRUARY 21, 1980).

/4/ IN VIEW OF THIS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS IT
UNNECESSARY TO REACH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS
ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH ANY GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION, AS THE
AGENCY CONTENDS.