27:0107(19)CA - Interior, Washington, DC and Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC and Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region and NFFE local 951 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v27 p107 ]
27:0107(19)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 27 FLRA No. 19
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 and
 
 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 
 WASHINGTON D.C.
 
 and
 
 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 
 MID-PACIFIC REGION
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 951
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 9-CA-50283 
                                              (25 FLRA No. 6)
 
                 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 
    This case is before the Authority based on the Respondent's Motion
 for Reconsideration and request for a stay in our decision in the
 above-entitled matter.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
 motion and the stay request.
 
    In our decision we determined that Respondent Department of the
 Interior and Respondent Bureau of Reclamation violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute) by interfering with the bargaining obligation of
 Respondent Mid-Pacific Region.  Specifically, we found that Respondent
 Interior and Respondent Bureau interfered with the protected rights of
 the Region's employees by directing the Region to implement a limitation
 on travel advances that precluded it from fulfilling its obligation to
 bargain with the Union on a change in conditions of employment.  In
 reaching this conclusion, we determined, based on the record before us,
 that the Union's proposal concerning travel advances was within the
 Region's duty to bargain.  We rejected the Respondent's arguments that
 the proposal did not concern a matter affecting unit employees'
 conditions of employment under section 7103(a)(14)(C) of the Statute;
 that it concerned the methods and means of performing work under section
 7106(b)(1), and was negotiable only at the election of the Agency;  and
 that it was barred from negotiation by Agency regulations for which a
 compelling need exists under section 7117(a)(2).
 
    In their motion for reconsideration, the Respondents contend that the
 Authority erroneously concluded that travel advances concern conditions
 of employment and do not constitute a "method and means" of performing
 the Agency's work.  The Agency also contends that the Authority should
 have found that there is a "compelling need" for the Agency's
 regulations setting the amounts for travel advances in its cash
 management program.
 
    Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a
 party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to request
 reconsideration of a decision of the Authori