Library of Congress v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
| Decision Date | 25 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1240,82-1240 |
| Citation | 699 F.2d 1280 |
| Parties | 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2897, 226 U.S.App.D.C. 128 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
John S. Koppel, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom William Kanter, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Frederick Geilfuss, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioner.
William E. Persina, Atty., Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., with whom Steven H. Svartz, Atty., Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent. Mary Elizabeth Medaglia, Atty., Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for respondent.
Before WRIGHT, TAMM, and WALD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge WRIGHT.
Petitioner Library of Congress (Library or agency) seeks review of an order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (Authority or FLRA) determining that six union bargaining proposals come within the scope of the Library's duty to bargain under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (the Act). 1 The Library contends that the proposals are nonnegotiable because they pertain to matters over which the Architect of the Capitol (Architect), not the Library, has exclusive statutory control. The Authority found that the Library must nevertheless negotiate about the proposals because it has discretion to make recommendations to the Architect. Since the Authority's decision is consistent with the Act and its legislative history, with analogous private sector case law, and with important considerations of public policy, we enforce in full the Authority's order.
In mid-1979 the Library announced that the newly constructed James Madison Memorial Building would open for employee occupancy in December of that year and that eventually about 80 percent of the Library employees would be housed in the new building. Four unions 2 representing employees involved in the move submitted to the Library collective bargaining proposals which dealt with the changes in working conditions created by the relocation. Among these union proposals were the following:
Union Proposal XI
Each employee in the Inquiry Section will be situated in such a way as to minimize the distractions to employees from telephone calls.
All corridors shall conform to the D.C. fire code and federal regulations.
No employee will be required to perform work in areas which violate appropriate NFPA Safety Codes, or which violate the recommendations of the 1973-74 FIREPRO report on fire safety in the Madison Building.
To insure quiet and efficient working conditions each analyst's office will be equipped with a door.
To insure quiet and efficient working conditions all two-person offices will have floor to ceiling partitions dividing the office.
Ten showers for men and ten showers for women will be provided in an area accessible from the rear loading areas. Sixty lockers suitable for temporary clothing storage will be provided in a space adjacent to the shower area. 3
The Library contended that it had no duty to bargain with respect to these and other collective bargaining proposals. The unions responded to this refusal to bargain by filing a negotiability appeal with the Authority. The Library in turn provided a statement of reasons for its determination of nonnegotiability, claiming that it could not bargain as to the above proposals because they involved matters relating to the structure of the new building and were thereby entrusted to the exclusive discretion of the Architect pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 141 (1976 & Supp. V 1981). 4
On January 7, 1982 the Authority issued its decision holding the union proposals to be bargainable. The Authority found that while the Library does not have actual statutory authority to implement the proposals, it does have the practical discretion to recommend structural alterations to the Architect. In documents submitted to the Authority, the Library conceded that it has made such recommendations in the past and that "in practice the Librarian has consulted with the Architect extensively" on these matters. 5 The Authority therefore held that since the proposals related to matters affecting employees' working conditions, the Library was obligated to bargain about the proposed changes to the extent of this discretion. 6 In other words, the Library's statutory duty to bargain was found to encompass a duty to negotiate over the content of any recommendations made to the Architect concerning these matters. 7
On September 17, 1982 the Library filed this petition for review, seeking to have the Authority's decision set aside on the ground that it engendered a radical expansion of the scope of mandatory collective bargaining fundamentally inconsistent with both the Act and analogous labor relations precedent in the private sector. The Authority subsequently filed a cross-application for enforcement of its decision ordering the Library to negotiate with the unions on the proposals.
Enacted in 1978, the Act comprehensively reorganized the structure of labor-management relations in the federal government. 8 Congress intended the new statutory system to serve the twin goals of protecting the right of public employees to organize and bargain collectively, while simultaneously strengthening the authority of federal management to hire and fire employees in the interest of a more effective public service. 9 The independent and bipartisan FLRA was established to administer and formulate policies under the Act, performing a role quite analogous to that of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the private sector. 10 Among its powers, the FLRA has authority to determine appropriate bargaining units, 11 to supervise representational elections, 12 to hear and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices, 13 and--most crucial to this case--to resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith. 14
The Act also establishes a collective bargaining system for federal employees. Under this system, federal agencies have a duty to engage in collective bargaining, 15 which is defined as "the performance of the mutual obligation of the representative of an agency and the exclusive representative of employees * * * to consult and bargain in a good-faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the conditions of employment affecting such employees * * *." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7103(a)(12) (Supp. V 1981). The term "conditions of employment" is in turn broadly defined by the Act to include "personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions * * *." Id. Sec. 7103(a)(14). Expressly excluded from this general obligation to bargain about conditions of employment are policies, practices and matters which are "specifically provided for by Federal statute[.]" Id. Sec. 7103(a)(14)(C). 16
Typically, disputes over negotiability arise when the union submits to the agency a proposal to be included in a collective bargaining agreement. If the agency believes that the proposal does not come within its duty to bargain, it may refuse to negotiate on that basis. The union then has a right to appeal the agency's refusal to the Authority. 17 The Authority then decides whether the statutory duty to bargain extends to the disputed matter, providing a written decision with specific reasons for sustaining or setting aside the agency's original determination of nonnegotiability. 18 If the Authority finds the proposal to be negotiable, it simply orders the agency to bargain in good faith; it neither addresses the merits of the proposal nor orders the agency to agree to the proposal.
Petitioner Library makes two basic arguments in urging this court to set aside the decision of the Authority that the disputed union proposals are bargainable. First, the Library contends that matters beyond the control of the agency cannot be deemed "conditions of employment" within the meaning of the Act and so are not mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. As principal support for this argument, the Library relies on the leading private sector case addressing the bargaining status of matters beyond exclusive employer control, Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488, 99 S.Ct. 1842, 60 L.Ed.2d 420 (1979). The Library also asserts that the Authority's decision cannot be reconciled with the statutory admonition to interpret the provisions of the Act "in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient government." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7101(b) (Supp. V 1981). After careful examination of the statutory language and history, private sector precedent, and policy considerations, we conclude that the Library's arguments fail and that the Authority's decision must be upheld.
We begin our review of this case mindful of the limited character of our inquiry. Congress has clearly delegated to the Authority the responsibility in the first instance to construe the Act and to determine whether a proposal comes within the statutory duty to bargain. 19 The Act provides that judicial review of FLRA decisions "shall be on the record in accordance with section 706 of this title." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7123(c) (Supp. V 1981). Section 706 of Title V in turn requires us to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be * * * arbitrary, capricious an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
...the agency to bargain in good faith. The Authority does not, however, address the merits of the proposal. See Library of Congress v. FLRA, 699 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1983).If a proposal is determined to be within the duty to bargain, the parties must negotiate, although they may adhere to......
-
National Treasury Employees Union v. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 82-1206
...by the agency charged with its administration if that construction is "reasonably defensible." Library of Congress v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 699 F.2d 1280, 1284-85 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citing and quoting authorities). See also American Paper Institute v. American Electric Power Servi......
-
Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, Financial Management Service
...strong guidance in parallel public sector matters. See NTEU v. FLRA, 810 F.2d 295, 299-300 (D.C.Cir.1987); Library of Congress v. FLRA, 699 F.2d 1280, 1286-87 (D.C.Cir.1983); see also United States Dep't of the Navy v. FLRA, 840 F.2d 1131, 1138 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.......
-
Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
...... relevant precedent developed under the NLRA is ... due serious consideration" by the FLRA and this court. Library of Congress v. FLRA, 699 F.2d 1280, 1287 (D.C.Cir.1983).10 Under the proposal, an arbitrator "would be guided by the collective bargaining agreement rather than" 5 U.S.C. § ......