Fort Stewart Schools v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
| Decision Date | 21 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-8734,87-8734 |
| Citation | 860 F.2d 396 |
| Parties | 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3024, 49 Ed. Law Rep. 1144 FORT STEWART SCHOOLS, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner, Fort Stewart Association of Educators, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
William Kanter, Appellate Staff, Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Ronald R. Austin, Overseas Educ. Ass'n, Rick Richmond, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Appellate Staff, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, cross-respondent.
Ruth Peters, Sol., F.L.R.A., Pamela P. Johnson, William E. Persina, Washington, D.C., for respondent, cross-petitioner.
Richard J. Hirn, Washington, D.C., for intervenor-Ft. Stewart Ass'n of Educators.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (Georgia Case).
Before VANCE and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and NESBITT *, District Judge.
Fort Stewart Schools (Army) seeks review of a Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) decision and order requiring it to negotiate three proposals with the Fort Stewart Association for Educators (Union). The FLRA and the Union cross-petition this court to enforce the FLRA's decision and order. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the FLRA's and Union's petition to enforce the FLRA's order and deny the Army's petition for review.
The Army operates two elementary schools for military and civilian personnel's dependents (dependents schools) at Fort Stewart, Georgia. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 241 (1974 & Supp.1988) (Secretary of Education authorized to make arrangements with federal agencies to operate schools under certain circumstances). The schools provide free public education for military and civilian personnel's children who reside on the federal property. The Union, an affiliate of the National Education Association, acts as the collective bargaining representative During contract negotiations with the Army, the Union submitted three proposals for bargaining. The first proposal included sections which set mileage reimbursement, mandated certain insurance programs, and gave the Union the right to review and comment on salary schedules. 1 The second proposal suggested a fixed salary increase of 13.5-percent for the teachers and other employees for the subsequent school year. 2 The third proposal detailed various leave practices such as personal leave, sick leave, professional leave, maternity leave, and leave without pay. 3 The Army refused to negotiate these three proposals, contending that the proposals did not involve mandatory bargaining matters.
for the schools' ninety-nine teachers and other employees.
The Union filed a negotiability appeal with the FLRA seeking a determination that each proposal involved a mandatory bargaining subject. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7117(c) (1980). The FLRA agreed with the Union and ordered the Army to negotiate the three proposals with the Union. 4
In reaching its decision, the FLRA rejected all the Army's contentions. First, the FLRA dismissed the Army's contention that the proposals do not concern conditions of employment. The FLRA reiterated its prior conclusion that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act (FSLMRA) does not preclude all bargaining over employee compensation. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7101-7135 (1980). See Fort Bragg Unit of N.C. Assoc. of Educators, Nat'l. Educ. Assoc. and Fort Bragg Dependents Schools, Fort Bragg, N.C., 12 F.L.R.A. 519 (1983) (WESTLAW FLB-FLRA database) (Congress did not intend to exclude dependents schools' employees' compensation and related benefits from negotiable conditions of employment in the FSLMRA). Furthermore, the FLRA found that the proposals involved "conditions of employment" because "the matters proposed are not specifically provided for by law and are within the discretion of the [Army]; and ... the proposals are not otherwise inconsistent with law, applicable government-wide rule or regulation, or with an [Army] regulation supported by a compelling need." 5 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1897 and Dept. of the Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, 24 F.L.R.A. (No. 41) 377 (1986) (WESTLAW FLB-FLRA database). Chairman Calhoun dissented, however, claiming that the duty to bargain does not encompass proposals concerning wages and money-related fringe benefits absent a clear congressional intent to make such matters negotiable.
The FLRA also held that the proposals did not interfere with the Army's right to determine its budget. The FLRA concluded that the Army failed to show that the proposals would significantly and unavoidably increase the Army's costs without producing compensating benefits to offset the alleged costs. See American Federal of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 F.L.R.A. (No. 77) 604 (1980) (WESTLAW FLB-FLRA database), enforced as to other matters sub nom. Dep't. of the Air Force v. FLRA, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom., AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945, 102 S.Ct. 1443, 71 L.Ed.2d 658 (1982) ().
The FLRA rejected the Army's contention that bargaining over compensation violates other federal laws. First, the FLRA determined that the proposals do not conflict with laws that regulate the solicitation of contract bids in the procurement process. The procurement laws mandate that federal agencies award contracts for professional services through competitive bidding. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304 (1983 & Supp.1988). The FLRA noted that it previously dismissed this same claim because procurement law does not govern teachers and employees in the dependents school system. See Fort Knox Teachers Assoc. and Board of Educ. of the Fort Knox Dependent Schools, 27 F.L.R.A. (No. 34) 203 (1987) (WESTLAW FLB-FLRA database) (dependent school teachers and employees are federal government employees rather than independent contractors making procurement laws inapplicable to them). Second, the FLRA concluded that the proposals do not violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits an agency from obligating itself to pay money before Congress appropriates funds. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (1983). Although the proposals obligate the Army to spend funds for salaries in the succeeding fiscal year, the FLRA noted that the Army's obligation accrues only when the employees earn the salaries. Fort Knox Dependent Schools, 27 F.L.R.A. at 217. Therefore, the government will appropriate funds before the Army incurs these obligations.
Finally, the FLRA ruled that the Army did not establish a compelling need for its regulation that requires it to pay dependents schools' employees a comparable salary to local public school employees. The FLRA, relying on a prior decision, held that "nothing in either [20 U.S.C. Sec. 241] or its legislative history persuades us that Congress intended to restrict the [Army's] discretion as to the particular employment practices which could be adopted." See Fort Knox Teachers Assoc., 27 F.L.R.A. at 216 (). Consequently, the FLRA concluded that the Army failed to demonstrate a compelling need for its regulation. Moreover, the FLRA concluded that even if a compelling need existed, the Army did not show that Sections A through G, and I and J, of Proposal 1 conflicted with the Army's regulation.
The Army brought this petition for review of the FLRA's decision and order pursuant to the FSLMRA. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7123(a) (1980). In response, the FLRA and the Union cross-petitioned for enforcement of the FLRA's order. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7123(b) (1980).
The Army petitions for review of the following issues: (1) Whether the Army has a statutory duty to bargain because the Union's proposals involve "conditions of employment" within the Army's discretion; (2) whether the Army established a compelling need for its regulation that mandates equality of compensation between employees in dependents schools and local public schools; and (3) whether the Union's proposals interfere with the Army's right to determine its own budget.
The FSLMRA gives federal employees the right to negotiate over "conditions of employment." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7102(2) (1980). Conditions of employment include "personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established by rule or regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions...." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(a)(14) (1980). Despite this broad definition, Congress has imposed two limits on the scope of the duty to bargain. First, the term "conditions of employment" excludes any matters "specifically provided for by Federal Statute." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(a)(14)(C) (1980). Second, the duty to bargain excludes matters that conflict with "any Federal law or Government-wide rule or regulation," or any agency regulation for which a compelling need exists. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7117(a)(2) (1980).
The Army contends that "conditions of employment" in the FSLMRA do not include wages and money-related benefits.
The Army further contends that even if the term "conditions of employment" is ambiguous, the Union's proposals conflict with federal law, excluding them from the statutory duty to bargain. The Union and the FLRA contend that the Army has a duty to negotiate the Union's proposals because the proposals involve conditions of employment within the Army's discretion.
1. Congressional Intent: FSLMRA's Language and Legislative History
Relying on prior decisions, the FLRA determined that the FSLMRA does not prohibit bargaining over compensation and fringe benefits under the following conditions: the agency has discretion over such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nuclear Regulatory Com'n v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
...NLRA. Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command v. FLRA, 836 F.2d 1409, 1416 n. 14 (3d Cir.1988). But see Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 860 F.2d 396, 400 (11th Cir.1988). "In common parlance, the conditions of a person's employment are most obviously the various physical dimensions o......
-
Department of Defense Dependents Schools v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
...other things, to be conditions of employment." Id., at 310 n. 7. The Eleventh Circuit makes the same argument in Ft. Stewart Schools v. F.L.R.A., 860 F.2d 396, 400-01 (1988). We are, with all respect, not persuaded. The NLRA uses the language "other terms and conditions of employment." In l......
-
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. National Aeronautics and Space Admin.
...of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 96, 104 S.Ct. 439, 444, 78 L.Ed.2d 195 (1983) ("ATF "); Fort Stewart Sch. v. FLRA, 860 F.2d 396, 405 (11th Cir.1988), aff'd, 495 U.S. 641, 110 S.Ct. 2043, 109 L.Ed.2d 659 (1990). Thus, in considering an ambiguous provision of the FSLMRS......
-
Fort Knox Dependent Schools v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, s. 87-3395
...and legal conclusions in this case, because "such deference only applies when the FLRA interprets the FSLMRA." Fort Stewart Schools v. F.L.R.A., 860 F.2d 396, 419 (11th Cir.1988); see West Point Elementary School Teachers Association v. F.L.R.A., 855 F.2d 936, 940 (2d Cir.1988); Shanty Town......