Click here to view the decision.
55 FLRA No. 1
AFGE, Locals 3807 and 3824 and U.S. Dept. of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Golden, Colorado, Case No. 0-NG-2391 (Decided December 17, 1998)
This case concerned four proposals that the Agency declared outside the duty to bargain. All of the proposals concerned the use of compensatory time and the payment of overtime to employees. The Authority found that the proposals were within the duty to bargain.
The Authority rejected the Agency's argument that the proposals conflicted with 5 C.F.R. § 550.114(d) because the regulation required the Agency to establish a time period for using compensatory time, after which there was no right to the compensatory time or to overtime pay. The Authority noted that section 550.114(d) permits, but does not require, the department head to fix a time limit for the use of compensatory time and to require forfeiture of compensatory time after that limit has expired. Accordingly, The Authority concluded that the proposals were not inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 550.114(d).
Additionally, the Authority concluded that the proposals did not conflict with an Agency-wide regulation for which there was compelling need. The Authority noted that in order to demonstrate that a proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it conflicts with an agency regulation, an agency must: (1) identify a specific agency-wide regulation; (2) show that there is a conflict between its regulation and the proposal; and (3) demonstrate that its regulation is supported by a compelling need within the meaning of section 2424.11 of the Authority's Regulations. In this case, the Authority found that there was no compelling need for the Agency's regulation. The Authority noted that section 2424.11(a) requires that the Agency demonstrate that its regulation is essential, not just desirable or helpful. Here, this requirement was not satisfied. The Authority also found that the proposals did not affect management's right to determine its budget.
In sum, the Authority concluded that the proposals were within the duty to bargain because they did not conflict with Government-wide regulation or an Agency regulation for which there was a compelling need, and because they did not affect management's right to determine its budget under section 7106(a) of the Statute.