27:0492(71)NG - Overseas Education Ass'n, Inc. and DOD, Office of Dependents Schools -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v27 p492 ]
27:0492(71)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 27 FLRA No. 71
 
 OVERSEAS EDUCTION 
 ASSOCIATION, INC.
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 
 OFFICE OF DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-840
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
        I.  Statement of the Case (Footnotes appear in the appendix
            to this decision)
 
    The petition for review in this case is before us because of a
 negotiability appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(D) and (E) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute).  It
 raises issues concerning the negotiability of 49 proposals.  The Union
 requests that the Authority sever "any parts, subparts, sentences,
 phrases or words" of proposals which are found to be nonnegotiable and
 "declare negotiable so much of the proposals which are negotiable." We
 grant the Union's request to the limited extent that we will rule
 separately upon those portions of the proposals which, as submitted, we
 view as being able to stand independently of the rest of the proposal
 and which have been specifically addressed by the parties.  /1/
 
    The Department of Defense, Office of Dependents Schools (the Agency)
 is a field activity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense which
 is responsible for providing an education for eligible dependents of
 military and civilian personnel stationed overseas.  It operates a
 system of schools overseas which are typically located on or near U.S.
 military bases.  Consequently, many of the facilities and services which
 the Agency utilizes and to which some of the proposals at issue in this
 case relate are controlled by the military departments or other
 components of the Department of Defense.  Based on their overseas
 employment, employees of the Agency are eligible for certain allowances
 and differentials which are governed by regulations issued by the
 Secretary of State.  Based on their overseas employment, they are also
 eligible for certain transportation and travel allowances which are
 governed by regulations issued by the General Services Administration.
 Given these circumstances, many of the proposals at issue in this case
 relate to matters which are not directly or completely within the
 Agency's control.
 
                              II.  Proposal 1
 
               Article 43 -- Housing and Housing Allowances
 
                                 Section 1
 
          The Employer shall assure adequate housing, subsistence,
       medical, commissary, exchange, laundry, and other essential
       facilities and services for unit employees, equivalent to
       stateside standards, are available.  The Employer shall not send
       unit employees to a particular work site unless and until such
       facilities are provided to the extent of meeting reasonable
       standards of health and decency.  Unit employees shall be entitled
       to housing at government expense or to a living quarters
       allowance.  If assigned housing at government expense, a unit
       employee shall not be required to vacate the housing because of
       the passage of time or government need.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that this entire proposal is nonnegotiable for
 the following reasons.  The first two sentences:  (1) do not concern
 conditions of employment but are limited to matters of personal interest
 to employees;  and (2) relate to matters which are not within the
 control of the Agency but, are controlled by the military departments.
 The second sentence, additionally, interferes with management's rights
 under section 7106(a)(2) to direct employees and assign work.  The third
 sentence conflicts with Government-wide rules or regulations -- the
 Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSRs).  The fourth
 sentence relates to matters which are not within the control of the
 Agency but are controlled by the military departments;  and would affect
 employees outside of the bargaining unit.
 
    The Union argues as follows:  The first two sentences concern
 conditions of employment within the control of the Agency and are
 intended to contractually guarantee provisions of Department of Defense
 regulations which relate to the living standards of employees assigned
 overseas.  The third sentence would entitle all bargaining unit
 employees to living quarters or a living quarters allowance regardless
 of their point of hire.  The DSSRs are not a bar to negotiation of the
 proposal because they are not Government-wide regulations.  In any
 event, the proposal, unlike the DSSRs, is consistent with the Overseas
 Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act.  Alternatively, even assuming
 that the DSSRs are Government-wide regulations, there is no conflict
 between them and the third sentence insofar as it would require the
 Agency to provide quarters (as opposed to a living quarters allowance)
 for "local hires," that is, employees recruited outside of the United
 States.  The Union contends that the matters proposed in sentence 4 are
 within the control of the Agency.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
                       1.  Conditions of Employment
 
    In Antilles Consolidated Education Association and Antilles
 Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA No. 23 (1986), the Authority set
 forth two basic factors which it would consider in deciding whether a
 proposal involves a condition of employment.
 
          (1) Whether the matter proposed to be bargained pertains to
       bargaining unit employees.
 
          (2) The nature and extent of the effect of the matters proposed
       to be bargained on working conditions of those employees.
 
    By its terms, this proposal is limited to bargaining unit employees.
 The only argument which the Agency makes to the contrary is that
 sentence four would impact on nonbargaining unit employees "because the
 housing policies of military departments are applied equally to
 employees not in the (Union's) unit of recognition." The Agency appears
 to be arguing that, because its housing resources are finite, what it
 provides to one individual or group necessarily results in denial to
 another.
 
    It is well settled that matters which are conditions of employment of
 employees in a bargaining unit and are within the discretion of the
 agency involved are within the duty to bargain.  For example, National
 Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 6 and Internal Revenue Service, New
 Orleans District, 3 FLRA 748, 759-60 1980).  Proposals which directly
 determine, that is prescribe, the conditions of employment of nonunit
 employees may be outside the duty to bargain.  However, otherwise
 negotiable proposals which directly determine conditions of employment
 of bargaining unit employees are not rendered nonnegotiable simply
 because they also effect conditions of employment outside of the
 bargaining unit to a limited degree or in an indirect way.  American
 Federation of Government Employees, Local 32, AFL-CIO and Office of
 Personnel Management, 22 FLRA No. 49 (1986), petition for review filed
 sub nom. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 32 v.
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 86-1447 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11,
 1986).
 
    This proposal does not prescribe what housing the Agency would
 provide to nonbargaining unit employees.  Consequently, we conclude that
 the proposal's effect on nonbargaining unit employees is not sufficient
 to render it outside the duty to bargain on that basis.  Moreover, we
 believe the argument is basically flawed.  Much of collective bargaining
 entails the distribution of finite resources.  The Agency's argument
 seems to presume that Congress intended to establish a system in which
 the duty to bargain arises only where infinite resources are available
 to it.  Compare American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal
 Labor Relations Authority, 785 F.2d 333, 337-8, (D.C. Cir. 1986) in
 which the Court noted that under the Statute an agency was not released
 from its duty to bargain whenever it had suffered economic hardship.
 
    We find that this proposal meets the first factor set forth in
 Antilles Consolidated School System.
 
    For the reasons which follow, we find that the proposal also meets
 the second factor insofar as employees whose residence abroad is
 attributable to their employment are concerned.  The first sentence of
 this proposal reflects the provisions of Department of Defense Directive
 Number 1400.6, dated February 15, 1980, entitled "DOD Civilian Employees
 in Overseas Areas" which provides:
 
          4.  In making a determination of numbers and types of U.S.
       employees for overseas areas, the Military Service Commander shall
       consider the ability of the command to ensure adequate housing;
       subsistence;  and medical, commissary, exchange, laundry,
       transportation, and other essential facilities and services.
       Except when required to meet unexpected emergency conditions, an
       overseas commander shall not request recruitment from the United
       States unless the command can provide such facilities to meet
       health and decency standards.
 
    Furthermore, various laws address housing or housing allowances for
 employees assigned to overseas posts of duty.  /2/ One purpose
 underlying these legal provisions is to compensate Federal employees for
 the extra costs and hardships incidental to their assignment overseas.
 See Acker v. United States, 620 F.2d 802 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
 
    These laws and regulatory provisions establish a direct connection
 between the facilities and services which are the subject of this
 proposal and the employment relationship insofar as employees whose
 residence overseas is attributable to their employment or who were
 recruited from the United States are concerned.  Therefore, we find that
 the proposal, which addresses the extent and manner to which such
 employees will be provided these facilities and services, concerns
 conditions of employment.  See National Federation of Federal Employees
 Local 1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4 FLRA
 139 (1980).  However, the record does not establish a similar
 relationship with regard to employees whose residence abroad is not
 attributable to their employment.  See Acker, 620 F.2d 802.
 
                           2.  Management Rights
 
    The second sentence of this proposal prohibits the Agency under
 specified circumstances from assigning employees to a particular post of
 duty.  It is materially to the same effect as Proposal 1 in National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1650 and U.S. Forest Service,
 Angeles National Forest, 12 FLRA 611 (1983).  In that case the Authority
 found that the proposal, which placed substantive restrictions on the
 agency's discretion to assign employees to duty stations, prevented the
 agency from exercising its right under section 7106(a)(2)(A) to assign
 employees.  For the reasons relied upon in Angeles National Forest, we
 reach the same conclusion as to the second sentence of this proposal.
 In view of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to rule on the
 Agency's argument that this sentence also conflicts with the Agency's
 rights to direct employees and to assign work.
 
                 3.  Government-wide Rules and Regulations
 
    In Overseas Education Association, Inc., and Department of Defense
 Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 2)
 petition for review filed sub nom. Overseas Education Association, Inc.,
 v. FLRA, No. 86-1491 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 1986) we ruled that the DSSRs
 are Government-wide regulations which will bar the negotiation of
 conflicting proposals.  Section 031 of the DSSRs restricts the
 circumstances under which a "local hire" may receive a living quarters
 allowance.  /3/ Therefore, in agreement with the Agency, we conclude
 that insofar as sentence three would create a blanket entitlement of
 bargaining unit employees, regardless of their point of hire, to a
 living quarters allowance, it conflicts with Government-wide
 regulations.
 
             4.  Effect of Military Control on Duty to Bargain
 
    The Agency's argument that it has no duty to bargain over matters,
 such as the services and facilities addressed by this proposal, because
 they are controlled by other components of the Department of Defense is
 rejected here for the same reasons we expressed in Department of Defense
 Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 5).  As
 noted in that decision, where a union holds exclusive recognition in a
 component of an agency, that component is obligated to bargain over
 conditions of employment despite the fact that control over a particular
 condition of employment rests with a different organizational component
 in the same overall agency.  The only limits on an agency's obligation
 to bargain over conditions of employment, in that circumstance, are
 those placed on its discretion by provisions of law, Government-wide
 rule or regulation or agency regulations for which a compelling need
 exist.
 
                        5.  Summary and Conclusions
 
    Insofar as the proposal relates to employees whose residence overseas
 is attributable to their employment, the proposal concerns conditions of
 employment.  Sentence two, however, conflicts with the Agency's right to
 assign employees.  Insofar as sentence three is expressly intended to
 obtain living quarters allowances for all "local hires," it conflicts
 with a Government-wide regulation.  /4/ Insofar as that sentence is
 expressly intended to obtain quarters for all "local hires" it does not
 concern conditions of employment.  Control of the facilities and
 services which are the subject of the proposal by components of the
 Department of Defense other than the Agency does not present a basis for
 finding a proposal nonnegotiable.  We therefore find the proposal
 negotiable with the exception of sentences two and three which are not
 within the Agency's duty to bargain.
 
                             III.  Proposal 2
 
                                 Section 2
 
          At the end of each school year, each unit employee who is
       either serving under a transportation agreement or who agrees in
       writing to return to duty the following school year shall be
       authorized for the recess period immediately preceding such next
       school year at the option of the unit employee either housing or a
       living quarters allowance or storage of his/her household goods.
       (Only the underscored portions of the proposal are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that because this proposal is intended to obtain a
 living quarters allowance for local hires and part-time employees it
 conflicts with Government-wide regulations -- the DSSRs;  because the
 proposal concerns matters relating to the summer recess, when employees
 are not in duty status, it does not relate to conditions of employment;
 and because it would allow employees a choice of housing, quarters
 allowance or storage it conflicts with the Joint Travel Regulations
 (JTRs).
 
    The Union contends that the DSSRs are not Government-wide regulations
 or, even assuming that they are, the proposal does not conflict with
 them;  the proposal concerns a personnel policy or practice and,
 consequently, conditions of employment;  and the Agency has not
 demonstrated either that a compelling need exists for the JTRs or even
 that the proposal conflicts with the JTRs.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
                        1.  Conflict with the DSSRs
 
    As stated in connection with Proposal 1, the DSSRs, are
 Government-wide regulations and bar the negotiation of proposals which
 are inconsistent with them.  This proposal conflicts with the DSSRs
 inasmuch as it seeks to extend to all "local hires" and part-time
 bargaining unit employees the option of receiving a quarters allowance
 during the summer recess.  As noted earlier, section 031 (see note 3)
 limits the circumstances under which a "local hire" may receive a
 quarters allowance.  This proposal is inconsistent with those
 limitations prescribed by the DSSRs.  Section 031.5 of the DSSRs states
 that part-time employees shall not be granted, among other things, a
 living quarters allowance.  /5/ We are unpersuaded by the Union's
 argument that, because "part-time" teachers may actually work more than
 32 hours a week since the demands of their profession require work
 beyond time spent in the classroom, they cannot be viewed as part-time
 employees within the meaning of the DSSRs.  We find that a
 straightforward reading of section 031.5 leads to the conclusion that,
 insofar as teachers are concerned, a part-time employee is simply an
 employee who is scheduled to work less than a full-time employee.  /6/
 Clearly the intent of the DSSRs is to deny quarters allowances to
 part-time employees.  Based on the language of the proposal and the
 Union's explanation of it, we conclude that it seeks to circumvent this
 restriction.  The proposal is, therefore, inconsistent with the DSSRs.
 
                       2.  Conditions of Employment
 
    We reject the Agency's argument that, because the proposal concerns
 matters which occur during the summer recess, it does not concern
 conditions of employment.  The Department of Defense Overseas Teachers
 Pay and Personnel Practices Act specifically entitles certain teachers
 to quarters, quarters allowances or storage of household effects during
 the recess period.  Their entitlement is specifically conditioned upon
 agreement, and fulfillment of the agreement, to continue their
 employment the following school year.  20 U.S.C. Section 905(c) and (d).
  In our view this legal authority establishes, for those teachers to
 whom it applies, a direct relationship between quarters, quarters
 allowances and storage of household goods during summer recess and the
 employment relationship.  Based on this circumstance, we find that the
 proposal meets the second factor of the Antilles test, discussed in
 conjunction with Proposal 1, insofar as the teachers to whom 20 U.S.C.
 Section 905 applies are concerned.  See Acker v. U.S., 620 F.2d 802 (Ct.
 Cl. 1980).
 
                     3.  The Joint Travel Regulations
 
    The Agency's argument here that the proposal is nonnegotiable because
 of conflict with the JTRs is the same as that raised in conjunction with
 Proposal 10 in Department of Defense Office of Dependents Schools, 22
 FLRA No. 34 (1986).  That is:  the Agency asserts that pursuant to two
 Comptroller General decisions it is required to apply the JTRs uniformly
 to unit and nonunit employees.  The argument continues that the proposal
 would require it to either "waive" conflicting JTR provisions for unit
 employees or to apply the terms of the proposal to nonunit employees.
 The Agency contends that the first alternative would be inconsistent
 with the Comptroller General decisions which it contends are
 Government-wide rules and regulation as well as a nondiscretionary
 mandate of an outside authority which establishes a compelling need for
 the JTRs.  It contends that the second alternative would extend beyond
 its duty to bargain.
 
    We reject this argument here for the same reasons expressed in
 Department of Defense, Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34
 which stated, in relevant part:
 
          Section 7117(a) of the Statute specifically provides that the
       duty to bargain extends to matters which are the subject of an
       agency regulation where there is no compelling need for the
       regulation.  This allows negotiations over proposed conditions of
       employment of bargaining unit employees which may differ from
       unilaterally established conditions of employment set forth in
       agency regulations.  The Agency's strained interpretation of the
       Comptroller Generals's decisions deprives the compelling need
       provisions of the Statute of their intended meaning and is not
       supportable.  Those decisions addressed the question of whether
       agencies could arbitrarily waive regulatory provisions in
       individual cases.  This question is distinguishable from that
       presented by this case which is whether parties have a statutory
       right to negotiate conditions of employment applying to bargaining
       unit employees which differ from those set forth in agency
       regulations.  This proposal, by merely seeking to negotiate over
       matters covered by JTRs, does not conflict with the cited
       Comptroller General decisions themselves, or with any requirements
       they may place on the manner in which the JTRs are administered.
       Additionally, the Authority finds that nothing in the cited
       Comptroller General decisions would require that any provisions
       negotiated be applied to nonunit employees.  (Footnotes deleted.)
 
                        4.  Summary and Conclusions
 
    The disputed portions of the proposal as written and explained by the
 Union conflict with a Government-wide rule or regulation and are,
 therefore, not within the duty to bargain.  However, we reject the
 Agency's contentions that the proposal does not concern conditions of
 employment and that the proposal conflicts with the JTRs.
 
                          IV.  Proposals 3 and 4
 
                                 Section 3
 
                               (Proposal 3)
 
          A.  When a unit employee has been assigned to a new duty
       station, the Employer shall make available to said employee the
       availability of both government and economy housing prior to the
       issuance of travel orders and ODE (Office of Dependent's
       Education) shall be bound by such information.
 
                               (Proposal 4)
 
          B.  The Employer will also make available to each such employee
       information concerning the availability of furniture and
       appliances at the new duty station.  If this information is
       incorrect or subsequently altered after shipment of household
       goods, the Employer shall accommodate the adversely affected unit
       employee by storage of household goods, provision of appliances
       and/or furniture, or partial shipment of household goods.  (Only
       the underscored portions are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that both of these proposals are nonnegotiable
 because they do not concern conditions of employment.  Additionally, the
 Agency contends that, insofar as the proposals concern Government
 housing, the proposals concern matters within the control of the
 military departments and are outside its duty to bargain.  Insofar as
 the proposals concern housing obtained on the "local economy," they
 relate to matters over which it has no control.  The Union disputes the
 Agency's contention that the proposals are outside its duty to bargain.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    These two proposals concern conditions of employment.  As noted
 earlier, the Department of Defense Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel
 Practices Act entitles teachers to, among other things, quarters or
 quarters allowances.  The record shows that where quarters are provided,
 they are in some instances provided with some or all furnishings and
 appliances.  Agency Brief at 16.  As to shipment of household goods, 5
 U.S.C. Section 5724 authorizes agencies to pay for transportation and
 storage of household goods when an employee has transferred in the
 interest of the Government from one official station to another.
 However, where furnished or partly furnished quarters are provided,
 agencies are required to make an "appropriate reduction in the weight of
 household goods which may be authorized for shipment at Government
 expense." Federal Travel Regulations (FTRs), 2-8.4.b.
 
    The proposal relates to bargaining unit employees whose change of
 residence is a result of a change in their official duty station.  In
 view of this circumstance and the above-cited legal and regulatory
 provisions, we conclude that these proposals concern matters which are
 directly connected to the employment relationship and affect the working
 conditions of bargaining unit employees.
 
    The Agency's contention that the proposals are nonnegotiable because
 the military departments control the Government quarters referred to is
 rejected for the same reasons expressed in Department of Defense Office
 of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 5).  The Agency's
 argument that the proposals are nonnegotiable because it has no control
 over matters relating to local economy housing does not present a basis
 for finding a proposal nonnegotiable.  It is related to the merits of
 the proposals, not to whether the proposals concern conditions of
 employment, or are inconsistent with applicable law and regulation.
 
    Based on the foregoing, we find that Proposals 3 and 4 are within the
 duty to bargain.
 
                              V.  Proposal 5
 
                                 Section 4
 
          A.  Unit employees shall have the option to live in government
       housing or in economy housing.  Unit employees living in economy
       housing shall be authorized a living quarters allowance.  (Only
       the underlined portions are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency claims that the first sentence is nonnegotiable because it
 concerns a matter within the control of the military departments and
 conflicts with the regulations of those departments concerning the
 assignment of military housing resources.  It claims that insofar as it
 seeks a living quarters allowance for "local hires," the second sentence
 conflicts with the DSSRs;  insofar as it seeks a living quarters
 allowance for employees to whom Government housing has been made
 available, it conflicts with law and Government-wide regulations;  and
 insofar as it relates to an employee's election to occupy "local
 economy" housing as opposed to Government housing, it does not concern
 conditions of employment.
 
    The Union contends that Proposal 5 is intended to allow employees, as
 opposed to the Agency, to determine whether they live in Government
 housing or in local economy housing.  It disputes the Agency's
 contentions that it has no control over Government housing and that the
 proposal conflicts with law or Government-wide regulation.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    Under 20 U.S.C. Section 905 teachers are entitled to quarters or
 quarters allowances equal to those granted to other civilian employees.
 See Acker v. United States, 620 F. 2d 806 (Ct. Cl. 1980).  5 U.S.C.
 Section 5923, which governs grants of quarters allowances to civilian
 employees, in general, in foreign areas, provides that quarters
 allowances may be granted "when Government owned or rented quarters are
 not provided without charge." The DSSRs, which implement both 5 U.S.C.
 Section 5923 and 20 U.S.C. Section 905, provide that living quarters
 allowance shall cease when Government quarters are made available to an
 employee.  /7/ We conclude that quarters allowances are authorized only
 when quarters are not made available without charge to, although not
 necessarily occupied by, an employee.  /8/ Accord, Unpublished Decision
 of the Comptroller General, B-160195, October 27, 1966.  Inasmuch as
 proposal 5 would obligate the Agency to authorize a living quarters
 allowance despite the availability of Government quarters, it conflicts
 with law and Government-wide regulation.
 
    For the same reasons expressed in Department of Defense Office of
 Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 5), we reject the
 Agency's contention that proposal 5 is not within the duty to bargain
 simply because the Government housing involved is within the control of
 the military department.  That decision, relying on an earlier Authority
 decision, noted that where a union holds exclusive recognition in a
 component of an agency, the component is obligated to bargain over
 conditions of employment despite the fact that control over a particular
 condition of employment rests with a different organizational component
 in the same overall agency.  The only limits on an agency's obligation
 to bargain over conditions of employment, in that circumstance, are
 those placed on its discretion by provisions of law, Government-wide
 rule or regulation or agency regulations for which a compelling need
 exists.  Furthermore, although the Agency has asserted that Proposal 5
 conflicts with the regulations of the military departments relating to
 the assignment of housing, it makes no claim or showing that a
 compelling need exists for those regulations.  Thus it has presented no
 support for a finding that those regulations bar negotiations.  American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1928 and Department
 of the Navy, Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania, 2
 FLRA 451 (1980).
 
    We determined in conjunction with Proposal 1, that the DSSRs restrict
 the circumstances under which "local hires" may receive a living
 quarters allowances.  Thus, insofar as Proposal 5 would require that
 "local hires" must be provided with a living quarters allowance without
 regard for those restrictions, it conflicts with Government-wide
 regulations.
 
    We reject, for the reasons expressed in conjunction with Proposal 1
 above, the Agency's argument that Proposal 5 does not concern conditions
 of employment insofar as it relates to an employee's election to live in
 "local economy" housing.  Under the circumstances involved, the manner
 and extent to which employees will be provided access to housing
 concerns conditions of employment.
 
    Thus, we find that the first sentence of Proposal 5 is within the
 duty to bargain.  The second sentence, however, is not negotiable
 because it conflicts with law and Government-wide regulations.
 
                              VI.  Proposal 6
 
          B.  Unit employees who live in government housing and opt to
       move to economy housing shall have the moving expenses paid by the
       government.  Unit employees who live in economy housing and opt to
       move to government housing shall have their moving expenses paid
       by the government.  (Only the underscored portions are in
       dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with law and
 Government-wide regulation because it would require payment of moving
 expenses in circumstances where a move was the result of an employee's
 personal desires as opposed to the requirements of the Government.
 Moreover, it contends that the proposal does not concern conditions of
 employment.
 
    The Union contends that neither law nor Government-wide regulation
 preclude the negotiation of this proposal.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    Proposal 6 would require that the Agency pay moving expenses where an
 employee, at his/her option, moves between government housing and local
 economy housing at the same duty station.  Payment of expenses for
 transportation of household goods and personal effects of employees is
 governed by 5 U.S.C. Sections 5721-5734.  As relevant here, those
 provisions authorize agencies to pay such expenses from appropriated
 funds only in circumstances where a change in duty station is involved
 or where a new appointee is reporting to a duty station overseas.  With
 respect to the former type of move, payment is expressly prohibited
 where the transfer involved is primarily for the convenience or benefit
 of the employee.  5 U.S.C. Section 5724(h).  Nowhere in these provisions
 is payment for moves such as those contemplated by the proposal
 authorized.  Consequently, we conclude that the proposal is inconsistent
 with Federal statute.  /9/ See National Treasury Employees Union and
 Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 6 FLRA 508 (1981)
 (Proposal 1).
 
    The proposal also conflicts with a Government-wide regulation.
 Chapter 2 of the FTRs implements, among other things, the provisions of
 5 U.S.C. Sections 5721-34.  It reflects the limitations prescribed by
 those legal provisions on the circumstances under which relocation
 expenses may be paid from Government funds.  Inasmuch as the proposal
 exceeds those limitations it is inconsistent with the FTRs.  Chapter 2
 of the FTRs is issued by the Administrator of General Services pursuant
 to 5 U.S.C. Sections 5721-34 and 20 U.S.C. Section 905(a) and is
 applicable to Federal civilian employees, with minor exceptions, insofar
 as the subject of relocation allowances are concerned.  FTRs, 2-1.1 and
 2-1.2.  By their terms, these regulations apply to, and are binding on,
 the Federal workforce as a whole.  As such they are Government-wide
 regulations within the meaning of section 7117(a).  See American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3483 and Federal Home
 Loan Bank Board, New York District Office, 13 FLRA 446 (1983) (Proposal
 1).
 
    We also agree with the Agency that this proposal does not concern
 conditions of employment.  Earlier in this decision we ruled that, under
 the circumstances, the manner and extent to which employees whose
 residence abroad is attributable to their employment will be provided
 housing, concerns their conditions of employment.  However, this
 proposal is not limited to those circumstances in which an employee's
 decision to move is related to the employment relationship.  Rather, the
 proposal as drafted extends to employees' decisions to move which are
 based on purely personal considerations.  Consequently, we conclude that
 while the move may involve housing which is related to the employment
 situation, no relationship to the employment situation has been
 established with respect to the move itself.  See Antilles Consolidated
 Education Association and Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA
 No. 23 (1986).
 
    Based on the foregoing reasons, we find that the disputed portions of
 Proposal 6 are not within the duty to bargain.
 
                             VII.  Proposal 7
 
                                 Section 5
 
          In no case shall unit employees be required to share housing
       with other than their own dependents.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency argues only that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it
 concerns a matter which is controlled by the military departments and,
 therefore, beyond its control.  The Union contends that the proposal
 concerns a condition of employment which is within the Agency's control.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    As discussed in conjunction with Proposal 1, we find that, under the
 circumstances present here, housing provided by the Agency to employees
 involves a condition of employment.  Therefore, we find that the manner
 and extent to which such housing is provided concerns conditions of
 employment.  Moreover, we have rejected the Agency's argument that its
 obligation to negotiate over conditions of employment does not apply
 where control over the facilities or services which are the subject of a
 proposal rests with other components of the Department of Defense.  It
 is rejected here for the same reasons expressed previously.  The Agency
 has provided neither a specific assertion nor any showing that this
 proposal conflicts with military department regulations for which a
 compelling need exists.  See American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1928 and Department of the Navy, Naval Air
 Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania, 2 FLRA 451 (1980).  We
 conclude that this proposal is within the duty to bargain.
 
                             VIII.  Proposal 8
 
                                 Section 6
 
          When a unit employee, entitled to housing at government
       expense, is requested to pay fees for the care and maintenance of
       common areas, such fees shall be reimbursed to the unit employee.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency argues only that the proposal, which relates to on-base
 housing, does not concern conditions of employment.  The Union contends
 that the proposal does concern conditions of employment.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    The Union indicates that this proposal is directed at fees charged to
 bargaining unit employees living in quarters on military bases.  As
 previously discussed, employee occupancy of Government quarters is a
 matter which concerns their conditions of employment.  The Agency's
 argument here to the contrary is rejected for the reasons stated in
 conjunction with Proposal 1.  This proposal is, therefore, negotiable.
 
                              IX.  Proposal 9
 
                                 Section 8
 
          Unit employees who are converted by ODE from a Not To Exceed
       status to a definite status shall receive a living quarters
       allowance at the unit employee's option.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that because "Not To Exceed" (NTE) employees are
 local hires the proposal conflicts with the DSSR -- Government-wide
 regulations.  The Union, relying on the argument which it made in
 conjunction with Proposal 1, contends that conflict with DSSRs does not
 bar negotiation of the proposal.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    Inasmuch as this proposal would require that payment of a living
 quarters allowance to "local hires" without regard to whether their
 residence abroad was attributable to their employment, it is to the same
 effect as sentence 3 of Proposal 1.  For the reasons discussed and case
 cited with respect to that portion of Proposal 1, we find that this
 proposal conflicts with the DSSRs, which are Government-wide
 regulations, and is nonnegotiable.
 
                              X.  Proposal 10
 
                                 Section 9
 
          When a unit employee entitled to housing at government expense
       is required to pay fees for the care or cleaning of the assigned
       housing, such fees shall be reimbursed to the unit employee.
       (Only the underlined portion is in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that the proposal is not limited to on-base
 housing.  Because it relates to private quarters it does not concern
 conditions of employment.  It also conflicts with the DSSRs provisions
 concerning quarters allowances.
 
    The Union asserts that by its reference to "assigned" housing the
 proposal is limited to on-base housing and to fees which the employee is
 "required" to pay by Department of Defense.  The Union further argues
 that because quarters allowances do not apply to employees occupying
 Government quarters, the DSSRs provisions relating to quarters
 allowances are inapplicable to the proposal.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The Union's explanation of the proposal is compatible with its
 language and we adopt it for the purpose of this decision.  Under that
 interpretation we find that this proposal, like Proposal 8 is directed
 at employees living in quarters on military bases.  For the same reasons
 relied upon as to Proposal 8, we reject the Agency's assertion that this
 proposal does not concern conditions of employment.  In view of the fact
 that the proposal concerns government quarters, it does not concern
 quarters allowances and the provisions of the DSSRs relied upon by the
 Agency do not apply.  We find that this proposal is negotiable.
 
                             XI.  Proposal 11
 
                                Section 10
 
          If substandard housing is accepted by a unit employee, the unit
       employee will be reimbursed the difference between the rental of
       the substandard housing and the fair market rental of standard
       housing.  (Only the underlined portion is in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that the statutory provisions which govern
 quarters and quarters allowances do not extend to making the payments
 contemplated by this proposal, so that it lacks legal authority to make
 the payments.  The Union contends that what is proposed is common
 practice in the military departments.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    As noted in conjunction with Proposal 5, under 20 U.S.C. Section 905
 teachers are entitled to quarters or quarters allowances equal to those
 granted other civilian employees.  5 U.S.C. Section 5923, which governs
 the payment of quarters allowances to civilian employees in foreign
 areas, provides that, when government owned or rented quarters are not
 provided without charge an employee may be granted one or more of the
 following quarters allowances:  /10/
 
          (1) a temporary lodging allowance for the reasonable cost of
       temporary quarters;
 
          (2) a living quarters allowances for rent, heat, light, fuel,
       gas, electricity and water, and
 
          (3) under specified and unusual circumstances, payment for
       extraordinary, necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in
       initial repairs, alterations and improvements to privately leased
       residences.
 
    As discussed with respect to Proposal 5, employees are entitled to a
 quarters allowance as an alternative to being provided quarters without
 charge.  As to the legal authorities governing quarters allowances,
 there is no provision for payment of "partial rent allowances and rent
 differentials" /11/ such as those proposed by the Union.  By contrast,
 there is a specific legal provision authorizing payments for military
 personnel similar to those which the Union seeks for bargaining unit
 employees in this proposal.  /12/ Inasmuch as this proposal seeks
 payments beyond those authorized by 20 U.S.C. Section 905 and 5 U.S.C.
 Section 5923, we find that it is inconsistent with Federal law.  See
 National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury,
 Internal Revenue Service, 6 FLRA 508 (1981) (Proposal 1).  Proposal 11
 therefore is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                             XII.  Proposal 12
 
                                Section 11
 
          Government quarters for a single unit employee will in no event
       be less than 600 square feet and contain a private bath and
       private cooking facility.  (Only the underlined portion is in
       dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that the proposal does not concern conditions of
 employment and that it concerns matters which are controlled by the
 military departments.  The Union contends that the proposal concerns a
 matter which is within the Agency's control.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    As discussed in conjunction with Proposal 1, in view of the
 circumstances involved, quarters provided to bargaining unit employees
 pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 905 are matters which concern conditions
 of employment.  Also, as discussed in conjunction with Proposal 1, the
 Agency's argument regarding military control of the facilities involved
 does not present a basis for finding that an otherwise negotiable
 proposal is nonnegotiable.  Thus, we reject the Agency's arguments as to
 this proposal for the same reasons expressed earlier and find that
 Proposal 12 is within the duty to bargain.
 
                            XIII.  Proposal 13
 
                           Article 44 -- Travel
 
               Section 1 -- Use of POV on Official Business
 
          In the event an employee is required to travel in the
       performance of assigned duties, the Employer shall arrange
       transportation at government expense, or the employee shall be
       authorized the option of using his/her privately owned vehicles
       (POV) and/or commercial travel, and shall be reimbursed for travel
       costs in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations.  (Only
       the underlined portion is in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with the FTRs and the
 JTRs.  The Union contends that the proposal is consistent with the FTRs.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    As explained by the Union, this proposal would allow employees the
 option of having the Government arrange transportation or of using
 privately owned vehicles or commercial transportation with reimbursement
 made in accordance with the FTRs.  Contrary to the Agency's assertion,
 we do not interpret the FTRs as absolutely prohibiting employees who are
 travelling on official business from using methods of transportation
 other than those which have been determined to result in the greatest
 advantage to the Government.  /13/ However, where an employee elects to
 use an alternative method of transportation the extent to which they may
 be reimbursed for costs is subject to the limitations specified in the
 FTRs.  See FTRs, 1-2.2.b-1 and 1-2.2.d.  The proposal explicitly
 recognizes that reimbursement for costs is to be made in accordance with
 the FTRs.  Thus, the Agency's assertion that this proposal conflicts
 with the FTRs cannot be sustained.  Also, as stated in conjunction with
 Proposal 2, the Agency's contention that this proposal conflicts with
 the JTRs does not present a basis for finding it nonnegotiable.
 Department of Defense Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34
 (1986) (Proposal 10).
 
    Based on the foregoing, we find this proposal to be within the duty
 to bargain.
 
                             XIV.  Proposal 14
 
                                 Section 3
 
          Government transportation and transient government facilities
       shall be provided for employee attendance at workshops sponsored
       by the Association.  The Employer shall also provide government
       transportation and transient government facilities for employee
       attendance at a meeting of a technical, professional, scientific,
       or other similar organization for which an employee has been
       authorized by the Employer to attend in a duty or non-duty status.
        (Only the underlined portion is in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that insofar as this proposal concerns Union
 sponsored meetings and meetings which employees attend in nonduty status
 based on their personal desires, it does not concern conditions of
 employment.  Insofar as it concerns access to Government transportation
 and transient facilities, it relates to facilities and services which
 are controlled by the military departments, not the Agency.
 Additionally, the Agency asserts that the proposal would have an impact
 on nonbargaining unit employees.  Based on these reasons the Agency
 contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable.
 
    The Union contends that the proposal is intended to obtain access to
 facilities and services for employees attending Union-sponsored meetings
 and workshops relating to labor relations and collective bargaining or
 other approved meetings of technical, professional, scientific or
 similar organizations.  Additionally, the Union contends that the Agency
 does have control over employee access to the facilities and services
 involved.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    As to the first sentence of the proposal, neither party suggests that
 it would involve workshops or meetings relating to "internal union
 business";  nor does the language of the proposal require such a
 conclusion.  Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we interpret the
 proposal as not encompassing meetings of that nature.  The Authority has
 previously found that use of agency facilities and services, for
 example, telephone systems, by Union representatives for the purpose of
 negotiating and administering collective bargaining agreements concerns
 a matter related to conditions of employment.  American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604, 609-10 (1980),
 enforced as to other matters sub nom. Department of Defense v. Federal
 Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied
 sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945 (1982).  The Authority has also
 found that proposals allowing official time for employee attendance at
 union-sponsored training are within the duty to bargain.  National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 951 and Department of the
 Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Office, Sacramento,
 California, 3 FLRA 884 (1980).  Since the record indicates that the
 Union-sponsored workshops involved in the proposal are for
 labor-management relations purposes, that aspect of the proposal
 concerns matters related to conditions of employment.  By extension, use
 of Government facilities and services for the purpose of attendance at
 such workshops is a matter directly related to conditions of employment.
 
    The second sentence is limited to meetings which the Agency has
 authorized an employee to attend.  In view of this authorization we
 conclude that the meetings have some relationship to employment with the
 Agency and, thus, attendance is a matter related to conditions of
 employment.
 
    For the reasons relied upon with respect to Proposal 1, above, we
 reject the Agency's assertion that this proposal is not within the duty
 to bargain because the services and facilities involved are under the
 control of DOD components other than the Agency.  Its argument that this
 proposal would affect nonbargaining unit employees is essentially the
 same as that which we rejected in conjunction with Proposal 1.  It is
 rejected here for the same reason.
 
    Based on the foregoing, we find that Proposal 14 is within the duty
 to bargain.
 
                             XV.  Proposal 15
 
                      Section 4 -- Medical Evacuation
 
          During the time when an employee requires medical evacuation
       from and back to his/her duty station, he/she shall be entitled to
       transportation at government expense.  Modes of transportation
       shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
 
          A.  Med/Evac. aircraft.
 
          B.  Mac aircraft.
 
          C.  Charter Aircraft.
 
          D.  Commercial aircraft.
 
          E.  Military vehicles other than aircraft.
 
          F.  Commercial vehicles other than aircraft.
 
          G.  POV.
 
          (Only the underlined portions are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    Although the Agency contends that medical evacuation, in general, is
 not a condition of employment it alleges that this proposal is outside
 the duty to bargain only insofar as it concerns an employee's return to
 his/her duty station after medical evacuation.  Insofar as the proposal
 would involve payment of travel expenses relating to use of privately
 owned vehicles and commercial transportation, the Agency contends that
 there is no authorization in controlling statutes for such payments.
 Insofar as it would involve employee access to military transportation
 it concerns a matter which is not within the Agency's control and which
 would have an impact upon nonbargaining unit employees.
 
    The Union contends that return transportation after medical
 evacuation is a condition of employment and a matter over which the
 Agency has control.  It also contends that any impact which the proposal
 would have on nonunit employees is speculative, indirect and does not
 render the proposal nonnegotiable.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    We find that the proposal concerns conditions of employment.  As
 noted in conjunction with Proposal 1, DOD Directive Number 1400.6
 effectively establishes as a condition of employment for DOD civilian
 employees in overseas areas, among other things, the provision of
 adequate medical and transportation facilities and services to meet
 health and decency standards.  National Federation of Federal Employees,
 Local 1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4 FLRA
 139 (1980).  The Agency acknowledges that it currently provides medical
 evacuation, one way, to employees when determined necessary by medical
 authority.  It also acknowledges that employees are allowed to use
 military transportation facilities and services on a space available
 basis for purposes of returning to their duty station after medical
 evacuation.  Agency Brief at 24-25.  On the basis of these facts and
 circumstances we conclude that access to adequate medical treatment for
 employees whose residence overseas is attributable to their employment
 is directly connected to the employment relationship and is a condition
 of employment.  Moreover, we conclude that access to such medical
 treatment reasonably encompasses the employee's ability to return to
 his/her post of duty following the treatment as well as the ability to
 get to the treatment.
 
    The Agency's arguments that this proposal is nonnegotiable because it
 relates to facilities and services controlled by the military
 departments and because of its impact on nonbargaining unit employees
 are the same as those raised in conjunction with Proposal 1.  They are
 rejected here for the same reasons as expressed in relation to that
 proposal.
 
    Insofar as the proposal would require payment of employee
 transportation expenses relating to use of commercial and privately
 owned vehicles, it is inconsistent with Federal law.  In this regard,
 chapter 57 of title 5 of the U.S. Code is the basic authority for use of
 appropriated funds for payment of travel and transportation expenses
 incurred by Federal employees in general.  As to travel expenses
 relating to illness, these statutory provisions authorize only:
 
          (1) return travel to a designated post of duty, home, or
       regular place of business when an employee who is traveling on
       business away from such becomes incapacitated by illness or injury
       not due to his/her own misconduct (5 U.S.C. Section 5702(b));
 
          (2) subsistence without charge while an employee or dependent
       is being evacuated as a patient by U.S. military aircraft (5
       U.S.C. Section 5709);  and
 
          (3) transportation of the remains of an employee when death
       occurred while the employee was in travel status or performing
       official duties outside the United States (5 U.S.C. Section 5742).
 
    The provisions of chapter 57 which authorize payment of travel
 expenses do not include the types of expenses addressed by this
 proposal.  Therefore, we find that those portions of the proposal which
 relate to payment of expenses incurred in the use of commercial
 transportation and privately owned vehicles are inconsistent with
 chapter 57 of title 5, U.S. Code.  /14/
 
    Based on the foregoing, we find that to the extent that the proposal
 addresses use of military transportation it is within the duty to
 bargain.  However, to the extent that it addresses payment for use of
 commercial transportation and privately owned vehicles it conflicts with
 law and is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                             XVI.  Proposal 16
 
                    Section 5 -- Travel to Emergencies
 
          A.  An employee shall be granted leave to attend to personal
       emergencies that result from such events as death of relatives,
       possible death of relatives, disability sicknesses, legal
       proceedings.  etc.  (Only the underlined portions are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts and the Union disputes that the proposal conflicts
 with statute, specifically 20 U.S.C. Section 904.  The Union states that
 this proposal contractually guarantees the right to take leave for
 personal emergencies and enumerates some of the situations which
 constitute personal emergencies.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    We do not view the proposal as inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. Section
 904.  That section provides among other things, that teachers may use
 the leave to which that section entitles them "in the event of any
 personal emergency." Nowhere in section 904 or in the other provisions
 of the Department of Defense Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel
 Practices Act is "personal emergency" defined.  In our view the types of
 events specified in the proposal could reasonably result in a personal
 emergency.  Thus, we reject the Agency's contention that this proposal
 conflicts with 20 U.S.C. Section 904.
 
    However, we find that this proposal is nonnegotiable for a different
 reason.  By its language and the Union's stated intent, this proposal
 would require the Agency to grant leave requests under the specified
 circumstances.  It is materially identical to Proposal 1 in American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, International Council of
 Marshals Service Locals and U.S. Marshals Service, 15 FLRA 333 (1984),
 which the Authority found violated management's right under section
 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work.  For the reasons expressed in U.S.
 Marshals Service, we find that Proposal 16 is not within the duty to
 bargain.
 
                            XVII.  Proposal 17
 
          B.  When an employee is excused from duty to travel to a point
       separate from his/her point of work to attend to personal
       emergencies, said employee shall be authorized travel through
       military transportation systems.  (Only the underlined portion is
       in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that the manner in which employees travel to
 attend to personal emergencies is not a condition of employment.  It
 asserts that the proposal is nonnegotiable for the additional reasons
 that the military transportation systems are not within its control and
 that it would impact on nonbargaining unit employees.  The Union
 contends that this proposal is negotiable "for the reasons stated" in
 conjunction with Proposals 14 and 15.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    DOD Directive Number 1400.6 includes as a consideration in recruiting
 employees from the U.S. for assignment to overseas duty stations the
 ability to ensure adequate transportation facilities and services.  See
 discussion of Proposal 1 above.  We view this regulatory provision as
 establishing a direct connection between the employment relationship and
 employee access to adequate transportation where associated with
 overseas assignments within the Department of Defense.  As this proposal
 addresses the extent and manner in which the Agency will ensure employee
 access to adequate transportation, we find that it concerns conditions
 of employment.  National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and
 Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4 FLRA 139 (1980).
 
    The Agency's arguments that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it
 relates to facilities and services controlled by the military
 departments and because of its impact on nonbargaining unit employees
 are the same as those which we rejected in conjunction with Proposal 1.
 We reject them here for the same reasons.
 
    Based on the foregoing, we find that this proposal is within the duty
 to bargain.
 
                        XVIII.  Proposals 18 and 19
 
                               (Proposal 18)
 
                                 Section 6
 
          A.  Employees who are eligible for Renewal Agreement Travel
       (RAT) shall have the option of:
 
          (1) Receiving a travel advance for the estimated amount;
 
          (2) Circuitous route travel;
 
          (3) Delays in route with no fee for deplaning MAC aircraft;
 
          (4) Traveling on MAC aircraft, MAC chartered aircraft, or
       commercial carriers;
 
          (5) Unaccompanied travel for dependents;  and
 
          (6) Space-available travel on MAC carrier worldwide.
 
                               (Proposal 19)
 
          B.  Before an employee shall be required to travel on orders in
       the performance of official business, he/she shall be granted an
       advance of funds if he/she so requests.  (Only the underlined
       portions are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that these two proposals are nonnegotiable for
 the following reasons.  Inasmuch as Renewal Agreement Travel (RAT)
 occurs during the school recess periods when teachers are in nonduty
 status, the subject is not a condition of employment.  Further, the
 specific provisions of Proposal 18 conflict with Government-wide
 regulations -- the FTRs, and agency regulations -- the JTRs and military
 department regulations.  The proposal also concerns matters under the
 control of the military departments.  Proposal 19 conflicts with law and
 Government-wide regulations.
 
    The Union contends that RAT is a condition of employment.  It denies
 that the proposals conflict with law or Government-wide regulations.
 Moreover, it asserts that the JTRs and military department regulations
 are agency regulations and that the Agency failed to demonstrate with
 respect to them that:  (1) in some cases, there is any conflict with
 Proposal 18;  and (2) in all cases, they are supported by a compelling
 need.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
                       1.  Conditions of Employment
 
    Renewal Agreement Travel (RAT) is authorized by 5 U.S.C. Section
 5728.  /15/ Those provisions allow eligible employees to receive
 allowances for travel and transportation expenses for purposes of
 returning home to take leave between tours of duty overseas.  The
 legislative history of this provision indicates that Congress considered
 that providing for RAT would yield substantial savings for the
 Government as a consequence of reduced employee turnover resulting from
 permitting such payments.  /16/ Hence a primary intent underlying this
 statutory provision is encouraging workforce stabilization at overseas
 stations.  This intent is underscored by the provision that conditions
 entitlement to the payments on completion of an agreed upon period of
 service overseas and written agreement to serve another tour at an
 overseas post.  This legal authority establishes a direct connection
 between RAT and the employment relationship.  Thus, we find, that RAT is
 a condition of employment.
 
                       2.  Proposal 18, subsection 1
 
    This subsection would allow employees eligible for RAT to receive a
 travel advance.  Chapter 2 of the FTRs prohibits travel advances for per
 diem and mileage allowances where RAT is involved.  /17/ As noted in our
 discussion of Proposal 6 above, chapter 2 of the FTRs is a
 Government-wide regulation.  We therefore find that this subsection of
 the proposal is nonnegotiable because it conflicts with a
 Government-wide regulation.  However, for the same reasons which we
 stated in conjunction with Proposal 2, we reject the Agency's argument
 that this subsection is nonnegotiable because of its alleged conflict
 with the JTRs.
 
                       3.  Proposal 18, subsection 2
 
    The Agency asserts that this subsection, which would allow circuitous
 route travel, conflicts with the FTRs, 1-2.5.b.  That provision of the
 FTRs states that, when a person for his/her own convenience travels by
 an indirect route or interrupts travel by a direct route, "the extra
 expense shall be borne by him/her." /18/ It is applicable where RAT is
 involved.  /19/ The Union states that the proposal is not intended to
 relieve employees of any obligation to pay additional costs incurred as
 a result of circuitous route travel.  This interpretation is compatible
 with the language of the proposal and we adopt it for purposes of this
 decision.  Based on it, we reject the Agency's argument that this
 subsection is inconsistent with the FTRs.
 
    The Agency also asserts that this subsection conflicts with 5 U.S.C.
 Section 5733 which requires, essentially, that employees must travel by
 the most expeditious means of transportation practicable.  /20/ The
 legislative history of this provision contains the following statement:
 /21/
 
          The committee also believes that agencies should utilize the
       most expeditious means of transportation practicable, commensurate
       with the nature and purpose of an employee's duties.  To require
       an employee to ride the bus 200 or 500 or 1,000 miles to attend a
       meeting simply because it is the cheapest form of transportation
       is a false economy and archaic practice.
 
    In our view the Congressional intent of this statutory provision is
 to authorize use of faster means of transportation commensurate with the
 nature and purpose of an employee's duties even where a slower, although
 less costly, means is available.  Given this intent, the provision is
 not applicable to the circumstances involved in this proposal:
 employees who are traveling in nonduty status during summer recess and
 who are personally bearing any additional costs resulting from
 alternative routing.  Hence, we find that section 5733 does not apply.
 
    Based on these reasons we reject the Agency's arguments and find that
 subsection 2 is negotiable.
 
                       4.  Proposal 18, subsection 3
 
    Subsection 3 would allow delays in route with exception from fees for
 deplaning MAC (Military Aircraft Command) aircraft.  The Agency asserts
 that it conflicts with FTRs 1-2.5 (note 18) which requires employees to
 pay any additional costs resulting from indirect travel.  Additionally
 it asserts that deplaning fees are determined by regulations of MAC over
 which it has no control.  Agency Brief at 27-28.  The Union states that
 the intention of this proposal is to allow interrupted travel unless
 there is actual additional expense incurred by the Government.  This
 interpretation is compatible with the language of the proposal and we
 adopt it for purposes of this decision.  In view of this interpretation,
 we find that subsection 3 does not conflict with the provisions of the
 FTRs which require that additional expenses incurred in interrupted
 travel be borne by the traveller rather than the Government.  Rather
 subsection 3 only exempts employees from the deplaning fees which are
 controlled by MAC.
 
    Moreover, the Agency's argument that it has no control over deplaning
 fees is essentially the same as that which we discussed and rejected in
 conjunction with proposal 1 above.  It is rejected here for the same
 reasons.
 
          Based on these reasons, we find that subsection 3 is within the
       duty to bargain.
 
                       5.  Proposal 18, subsection 4
 
    This subsection gives employees the option of travelling by aircraft
 provided by the military, or by commercial aircraft.  In its statement
 as to the intent of this proposal the Union specified that this option
 would be "in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations." The Agency
 argues that this subsection conflicts with provisions of the JTRs which
 are "in accordance with" FTRs, 1-2.2.b.
 
    As noted in our discussion of Proposal 13, FTRs, 1-2.2.b, generally
 requires that employees travelling on official business use the method
 of transportation which will result in the greatest advantage to the
 Government.  However, where an employee uses an alternative method
 he/she is responsible for any resulting additional costs.  Under FTRs,
 2-1.5.h(2)(b) and 2-2.1 and 2-2.2 (note 19), these restrictions are
 applicable to RAT.  Inasmuch as subsection 4 does not prevent the Agency
 from requiring an employee to pay any additional costs resulting from an
 election as to method of transportation, we find that it is not
 inconsistent with the FTRs.  We reject the Agency's argument that
 conflict with the JTRs bars negotiation of this subsection for the same
 reasons which we stated in ruling on Department of Defense Office of
 Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 10).
 
    Based on these reasons we find that inasmuch as subsection 4 does not
 require the Agency to pay any expenses which do not accord with
 requirements and limitations prescribed by the FTRs, it is within the
 duty to bargain.
 
                   6.  Proposal 18, subsections 5 and 6
 
    These subsections would allow unaccompanied travel by dependents and
 space-available travel on MAC carriers.  The Agency argues only that
 these subsections concern matters which are controlled by MAC
 regulations over which the Agency has no control.  We rejected this
 argument here for the reasons stated in conjunction with Department of
 Defense Office of Dependents School, 22 FLRA No. 34 (Proposal 5).  These
 subsections are within the duty to bargain.
 
                              7.  Proposal 19
 
    This proposal would allow employees travelling on official business
 to receive a travel advance at their request.  The Union intends this
 proposal to apply to employees travelling on RAT.  Union Reply Brief at
 36-37.  The Agency asserts that the proposal conflicts with the FTRs and
 5 U.S.C. Section 5705.
 
    For the reasons expressed above as to Proposal 18, subsection 1, we
 find that this proposal conflicts with the FTRs -- a Government-wide
 regulation.  However, contrary to the Agency's argument we find that 5
 U.S.C. Section 5705 does not apply to RAT.  By its terms section 5705
 applies to travel expenses authorized under subchapter I of chapter 57.
 The provisions relating to RAT are contained in subchapter II of chapter
 57.  Hence, we reject the Agency's argument that this proposal conflicts
 with statute.
 
    We conclude that Proposal 19 is nonnegotiable because it conflicts
 with FTRs, 2-2.4, a Government-wide regulation.
 
                                C.  Summary
 
    Proposal 18 is within the duty to bargain except for subsection 1.
 Proposal 19 is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                             XIX.  Proposal 20
 
    The FLRA Members disagree as to the negotiability of this proposal.
 The decision and order on Proposal 20 and Chairman Calhoun's dissent
 immediately follow this decision.
 
                             XX.  Proposal 21
 
                       Section 8 -- Non-duty Travel
 
          An employee not entitled to government travel at his/her home
       of record in the United States at the close of the school year
       shall be issued travel orders at his/her request to his/her home
       of record at the close of the school year in the same manner as if
       he/she were entitled provided he/she reimburses the government for
       the cost of such travel.  (Only the underscored portion is in
       dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that this proposal does not concern conditions of
 employment and conflicts with Government-wide regulations.  The Union
 states that this proposal is designed to allow employees to travel at
 reduced rates on commercial airlines and on MAC scheduled flights.  It
 asserts that such travel should help to reduce employee turnover and
 increase morale.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    Based on the Union's explanation, which is compatible with the
 language of this proposal, its purpose is to facilitate the travel of
 teachers to their homes in the United States during summers when they
 are not eligible for RAT.
 
    For the following reasons we find, contrary to the Agency's
 assertion, that the proposal concerns conditions of employment of
 bargaining unit employees.  As a general matter, the employment
 circumstances of civilians assigned overseas include many features which
 are unique to them and which are based on their employment overseas.
 For example, by law and regulation, those civilians whose residence
 overseas is attributable to their employment overseas receive many
 benefits which are related to their living conditions such as quarters
 or quarters allowances and various other allowances and differentials
 associated with living costs and conditions.  Moreover, the Department
 of Defense, by Department of Defense Directive Number 1400.6 (see our
 discussion of Proposal 1), has recognized a relationship between
 employment overseas and the employer's ability to assure adequate living
 conditions.  Consequently, many matters which concern living conditions
 and which in other circumstances have little or no relationship to the
 employment situation become conditions of employment in the context of
 overseas assignment.
 
    We find that this proposal to facilitate the travel of teachers to
 their homes in the U.S. during summer vacation meets the Antilles test
 for determining what constitutes a condition of employment.  It is
 undisputed that the proposal is focused on bargaining unit employees.
 As to the second criterion we noted in conjunction with Proposals 18 and
 19 that Congress, in passing the legal provisions governing RAT,
 recognized a correlation between facilitating the ability of employees
 assigned overseas to travel to their homes in the U.S. on vacation and
 their willingness to continue their employment overseas.  Moreover, one
 of the things which Department of Defense Directive Number 1400.6
 requires to be considered prior to recruiting civilians from the U.S.
 for overseas assignment is availability of adequate transportation
 services.  We conclude that facilitating employee access to
 transportation for purposes of returning to their homes in the U.S. is a
 matter which directly relates to the Agency's recruitment and
 maintenance of a sufficient and stable workforce overseas.  See
 Department of the Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, 23 FLRA No.
 83 (1986).  It is therefore a condition of employment insofar as
 employees whose residence is attributable to their employment there.
 
    Although the Agency makes an assertion that this proposal is contrary
 to Government-wide regulations, it has neither cited a particular
 Government-wide regulation nor supported its argument.  Absent any
 showing that law or applicable regulation proscribe the use of travel
 orders in the manner proposed, and inasmuch as the proposal concerns
 conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees, we find that
 Proposal 21 is within the duty to bargain.
 
                             XXI.  Proposal 22
 
                 Section 9 -- Travel for Retired Employees
 
          Upon retirement, ODE/DODDS employees shall be authorized
       space-available travel on military and military contracted
       aircrafts.  (Only the underscored section of the proposal is in
       dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency argues that inasmuch as this proposal would apply to a
 time when employees are no longer members of the bargaining unit, it
 does not concern conditions of employment.  The Union asserts that the
 proposal is negotiable because it seeks a "delayed" benefit for
 "current" bargaining unit members.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    Under the Antilles test (see our discussion of Proposal 1 above) we
 conclude that this proposal does not concern conditions of employment.
 While it meets the first factor to this test, it does not meet the
 second factor.  As to first factor, the proposal is principally focused
 on bargaining unit employees.  There is no indication that the Union
 proposal seeks a benefit for current retirees;  rather, it is limited to
 seeking a benefit for current employees upon their retirement.
 
    As to the second factor, it has not been demonstrated that the matter
 proposed would serve to increase employee retention or to contribute to
 the ability of the employer to maintain a stable and sufficient
 workforce overseas.  Other than providing promise of a benefit during
 their retirement, the proposal has no relationship to the working
 conditions of bargaining unit employees.  Based on the limited nature
 and extent to which this proposal would relate to the working conditions
 or employment relationship of bargaining unit employees, we conclude
 that it does not concern conditions of employment.
 
    We find that the disputed portion of this proposal is not within the
 duty to bargain.
 
                          XXII.  Proposals 23-27
 
                     Article 67 -- Overseas Allowances
 
  Section 1 -- Eligibility for Living Quarters Allowance and Post
 Differential
 
                               (Proposal 23)
 
          A.  In order to implement 20 U.S.C. Section 905(a), and to
       retain qualified and experienced employees, each employee in the
       bargaining unit shall be entitled, in addition to basic
       compensation to quarters, quarters allowance, storage, post
       differential, and post allowances.  This provision applies to all
       such unit employees, including JROTC instructors to the extent
       permitted by law and to those employees who are assigned classes
       for less than a full instructional day, and without regard to the
       employee's point of hire.
 
                               (Proposal 24)
 
          B.  Each employee in the bargaining unit will be eligible to
       receive a post differential and living quarters allowance for the
       rental or purchase of privately owned quarters regardless of the
       availability of government quarters so long as the employee elects
       not to occupy government quarters.
 
                               (Proposal 25)
 
          D.  A bargaining unit employee who sells his/her privately
       owned quarters at any time and moves into different rental
       quarters is entitled to indefinite living quarters allowance for
       rental purposes.
 
                               (Proposal 26)
 
          E.  An employee who resigns during the course of the school
       year shall be entitled to receive LQA up until the time of his/her
       departure from the post or no later than the first day of the next
       school year.
 
                               (Proposal 27)
 
          F.  The rates for overseas allowances and differentials shall
       be determined jointly between the parties within rates permissible
       by the United States Code during an annual negotiations session.
       Rates shall be fixed, at a minimal flat rate, at the beginning of
       each school year.  Adjustments in fixed rates shall be done only
       once a year.
 
          (Only the underscored portions of these proposals are in
       dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency takes the position that these proposals conflict with
 various legal provisions which address overseas allowances and
 differentials and/or Government-wide regulations -- the DSSRs.  The
 Union contends that these proposals do not conflict with law and that
 the DSSRs are not Government-wide regulations.  More specifically with
 respect to Proposals 23 and 24 the Union contends that because teachers
 who teach only part of the instructional day are not "part-time"
 employees within existing legal definitions, these proposals are not
 inconsistent with any legal or regulatory prohibitions on receipt of
 allowances and differentials by part-time employees.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
                              1.  Proposal 23
 
    As explained by the Union, this proposal is not intended to entitle
 employees to quarters allowances and storage simultaneously but to allow
 employees, as opposed to the Agency, to chose among available options.
 This interpretation is compatible with the language of the proposal and
 we adopt it for purposes of this decision.  In view of this we reject
 the Agency's argument that this proposal is nonnegotiable for the reason
 that it would entitle employees to receive quarters, storage and
 quarters allowances, simultaneously.  Similarly, we reject the Agency's
 argument that this proposal conflicts with 10 U.S.C. Section 2301(d)(1)
 /22/ insofar as JROTC instructors are concerned.  The specific language
 of the proposal limits the entitlement of JROTC instructors to the
 designated allowances and differentials "to the extent permitted by
 law." Consequently, we cannot agree with the Agency that the proposal
 would circumvent the provisions of title 10.
 
    However, for the reasons expressed in conjunction with Proposal 5
 earlier in this decision we find that, insofar as the proposal would
 entitle an employee to choose to receive a quarters allowance when
 Government quarters are available, it conflicts with law and
 Government-wide regulation.  Moreover, inasmuch as it provides blanket
 entitlement to each unit employee to receive allowances and post
 differentials it conflicts with the DSSRs -- Government-wide
 regulations.  Sections 031.12 (note 3), 031.2, /23/ and 031.5 (note 5)
 of the DSSRs contain various restrictions on the payment of allowances
 and differentials to part-time employees and "local hires." For these
 reasons we find that Proposal 23 is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                              2.  Proposal 24
 
    For the reasons expressed in conjunction with Proposal 5, we find
 that insofar as this proposal would allow employees to receive a living
 quarters allowance even though Government quarters are available it
 conflicts with law and Government-wide regulation.  Also, for the reason
 discussed in conjunction with Proposal 1 we find that it conflicts with
 the DSSRs in that it would permit all "local hires" in the bargaining
 unit to receive a living quarters allowance.
 
    As to post differentials, the Agency asserts that the proposal would
 require paying differentials to all bargaining unit employees despite
 restrictions in the DSSRs on paying them:  (1) to part-time employees;
 (2) to certain "non-spouse" dependent employees;  and (3) at certain
 posts of duty.  The Union tacitly concedes that the proposal is intended
 to apply to all unit employees without regard to the restrictions in the
 DSSRs cited by the Agency.
 
    Under section 031.5 (note 5) of the DSSRs, part-time employees may
 not be granted post differentials.  /24/ Under section 031.3 they may
 not be granted to certain non-spouse dependent employees.  /25/ Under
 Chapter 500 of the DSSRs, payment of post differentials is restricted to
 certain posts of duty.  /26/ This proposal is inconsistent with these
 restrictions;  it is therefore inconsistent with a Government-wide
 regulation.
 
    Based on the foregoing we find that because Proposal 24 would
 expressly apply to each employee in the bargaining unit, it is not
 within the duty to bargain.
 
                              3.  Proposal 25
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with section 136 of
 the DSSRs which limits the payment of living quarters allowances in
 circumstances where an employee has purchased quarters.  /27/ The Union
 tacitly concedes that the proposal conflicts with the DSSRs in this
 respect as well as in regard to restrictions as to payment of living
 quarters allowances to "local hires" (section 031.12 -- note 3) and
 part-time employees (section 031.5 -- note 5).  The Union argues solely
 that the DSSRs are not Government-wide regulations.
 
    As we ruled earlier in Department of Defense Office of Dependents
 Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 2), the DSSRs are
 Government-wide regulations.  Inasmuch as this proposal conflicts with
 them, it is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                              4.  Proposal 26
 
    The Agency argues that insofar as proposal 26 would entitle "local
 hires" and part-time employees to a living quarters allowance, it
 conflicts with the DSSRs.  We do not view this proposal as creating an
 entitlement to a living quarters allowance for any category of employee
 which currently is excluded under the DSSRs.  Rather, we interpret it as
 seeking to extend the duration of existing entitlements beyond the point
 at which an entitled employee resigns.  Under this interpretation the
 proposal conflicts with section 132.42 of the DSSRs which requires
 termination of a living quarters allowance at the end of the last day of
 employment when an employee is separated.  /28/ In view of this we find
 that proposal 26 is not within the duty to bargain.
 
    However, we find that the Agency's argument that the proposal also
 conflicts with provisions relating to payment of a living quarters
 allowance while an employee is in a nonpay status does not apply.  An
 employee who has resigned is distinguishable from an employee who is in
 a nonpay status.
 
                              5.  Proposal 27
 
    This proposal seeks to have the amounts of the various overseas
 differentials and allowances determined through negotiations between the
 parties.  5 U.S.C. Section 5922(c) provides that overseas allowances and
 differentials are to be paid under regulations prescribed by the
 President governing, among other things, the rates at which the payments
 are to be made.  /29/ The regulations to which that provision refers are
 the DSSRs.  See Overseas Education Association, Inc. and Department of
 Defense Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal
 2).  The DSSRs prescribe specific methods for determining the rate of
 payment of the allowances and differentials and/or specific rates.  /30/
 Although there are limited, specific circumstances under which the DSSRs
 allow agencies to take administrative action to adjust rates, /31/ they
 do not grant discretion to generally establish rates different from
 those set forth in the DSSRs.
 
    We conclude that, inasmuch as this proposal would require rates to be
 established in a manner other than that contemplated by 5 U.S.C. 5922
 and the DSSRs, it conflicts with law and Government-wide regulation and
 is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                            XXIII.  Proposal 28
 
                Section 2 -- Living Quarters Allowance Rate
 
          A.  Only the number of an employee's dependents, and not
       his/her marital status, will determine a bargaining unit
       employee's living quarters allowance.  A locally acquired family
       or family member will be considered as a dependent without
       discrimination in determining an employee's living quarters
       allowance rate.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with the DSSRs.  The
 Union contends that the DSSRs are not Government-wide regulations which
 can bar negotiations.  Additionally, it argues that there is no conflict
 in any event between the second sentence of the proposal and the DSSRS.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The DSSRs are Government-wide regulations.  Department of Defense
 Office of Dependent Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 2).  The
 Agency asserts, and the Union does not dispute, that the first sentence
 of this proposal conflicts with section 134.13 of the DSSRs which
 governs the living quarters allowance rates to be paid married couples.
 /32/ The first sentence would require that an employee be paid a living
 quarters allowance based solely on number of dependents and without
 regard to marital status and the impact that a spouse's entitlements may
 have on the employee's entitlements.  We find that this is inconsistent
 with the limitations placed on the rates which married couples may
 receive by section 134.13.
 
    The Agency asserts that the second sentence of this proposal
 conflicts with the definition of "family" which appears in the DSSRs.
 In its petition the Union indicates that the phrase "locally acquired
 family or family member" in the proposal refers to children who are
 adopted by an employee in the host country.  The definition of family
 which is contained in the DSSRs encompasses step and adopted children as
 well as those children under the legal guardianship of the employee or
 his/her spouse.  /33/ The definition contains no restrictions based on
 where these children are "acquired." In view of this, we reject the
 Agency's contention that this sentence conflicts with the DSSRs.
 
    Based on the foregoing, we find that the first sentence of this
 proposal conflicts with a Government-wide regulation and is not within
 the duty to bargain.  However, the second sentence does not conflict
 with a Government-wide regulation and is within the duty to bargain.
 
                            XXIV.  Proposal 29
 
          B.  If both spouses at a post are eligible for LQA and decide
       to share the costs as the basis for each receiving LQA, each
       employee spouse shall be entitled to receive 100% of the maximum
       payable to them based on their individual eligibility and the
       resultant LQA.  Payment for the two spouses shall not be limited
       to 150% of the maximum payable to the eligible employee spouse.
       This provision applies if both spouses are employees or if one
       spouse is an eligible employee and the other spouse is an eligible
       member of the military or other eligible employee of the United
       States.  (Only the underlined portion is in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that this proposal conflicts with section 134.13
 of the DSSRs.  The Union asserts that there is no conflict between the
 proposal and the DSSRs.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The plain terms of the proposal require that where both spouses in a
 "married couple" are eligible for a living quarters allowance, each
 spouse will receive the maximum to which they would be entitled on an
 individual basis.  Section 134.13 of the DSSRs (note 32) permits this
 where there are no dependents involved.  However where there are
 dependents, only one spouse would be entitled to receive the "with
 family" living quarters allowance rate.  The other would be limited to
 the "without family" rate.  Moreover, a further adjustment would occur
 in determining the increment for additional family members.  This
 proposal does not distinguish between those married couples with
 dependents and those without.  As written, it would conflict with the
 limitations which the DSSRs place on the living quarters allowances
 rates which may be paid to married couples.  Based on this conflict with
 the DSSRs, Government-wide regulations, the proposal is nonnegotiable.
 
                             XXV.  Proposal 30
 
          C.  The rule which limits annual rent to one-tenth of the
       purchase price or appraised value of a residence owned by an
       employee or the employee's spouse shall not apply when an employee
       resides in quarters owned by a family member other than a spouse.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with section 136 of
 the DSSRs.  In its petition the Union indicates that this proposal is
 intended to apply to those circumstances where an employee rents
 quarters from a family member other than a spouse.  This interpretation
 is compatible with the language of the proposal and is adopted for
 purposes of this decision.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    Section 136 of the DSSRs (note 27) limits the amount which may be
 paid as a living quarters allowance for quarters which are occupied by
 an employee only when the quarters are owned by the employee and/or the
 spouse.  There is no support for the Agency's position that this
 limitation applies as well in circumstances where the quarters are owned
 by a family member other than a spouse.  Consequently, the Agency has
 not established that this proposal conflicts with section 136 of the
 DSSRs.  We find that this proposal is within the duty to bargain.
 
                            XXVI.  Proposal 31
 
       Section 3 -- Continuation of Allowances During Nonpay Status
 
          A.  A bargaining unit employee may appeal to his/her principal
       for a continuation, in the public interest, of Living Quarters
       Allowance and Post Differential during an employee's nonpay
       status.  The affected employee of the Association may appeal the
       principal's determination to the appropriate regional director.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with the DSSRS which
 require suspending the payment of post differential to an employee who
 is in a nonpay status.  The Union claims that the proposal merely
 establishes a procedure by which employees may seek to have a "public
 interest" exception, which is provided for by the DSSRs, applied to
 them.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The DSSRs explicitly provide that payment of post differential shall
 be suspended while an employee is in a nonpay status.  /34/ As to
 allowances, the DSSRs allow them to continue during periods when an
 employee is in a nonpay status not in excess of 14 calendar days at any
 one time.  For periods in nonpay status in excess of 14 calendar days,
 no payment is to be made for any part of the nonpay period unless
 otherwise specifically provided for in the DSSRs.  /35/ More
 particularly as to living quarters allowances, the DSSRs allow
 continuation of payment where the head of the agency determines that
 continuation is in the public interest while an employee is in nonpay
 status not in excess of 30 calendar days at any one time.  /36/
 
    Thus, the DSSRs absolutely require an agency to discontinue a post
 differential while an employee is in a nonpay status but they provide
 for a limited continuation of a living quarters allowance if the agency
 determines that it would be in the public interest.  Consequently, we
 find that insofar as the proposal relates to seeking a continuation of a
 post differential it is inconsistent with the DSSRs which are
 Government-wide regulations.  Insofar as the proposal relates to seeking
 limited continuation of a living quarters allowance, however, it is
 consistent with those regulations.  In regard to living quarters
 allowances, the Union's contention that the proposal is limited to
 providing a procedure for employees to seek the public interest
 determination allowed by the DSSRs is compatible with the language of
 the proposal and is adopted for the purposes of this decision.  Thus, we
 do not read the proposal as seeking a continuation of living quarters
 allowances beyond the time limit at which the DSSRs require termination.
  Therefore, the proposal is not negotiable as to post differentials and
 is negotiable as to living quarters allowances.
 
                          XXVII.  Proposals 32-34
 
                               (Proposal 32)
 
          B.  Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3A, supra, it is
       agreed that:
 
          (1) Because the process of collective bargaining, including the
       administration of a collective bargaining agreement, is in the
       public interest, an employee's living quarters allowance and
       differential shall not be terminated if he/she is on leave without
       pay due to service as an officer or representative of the
       Association.
 
                               (Proposal 33)
 
          (2) When an employee in the bargaining unit is using leave
       pending disability retirement or after an application has been
       submitted for optional retirement in lieu of disability
       retirement, the employee's allowances and differential shall not
       be terminated prior to ninety (90) days after approval of
       retirement by the Office of Personnel Management or prior to the
       beginning of the next school year, whichever is later.
 
                               (Proposal 34)
 
          (3) The grant of living quarters allowance and differential
       will continue for employees in the bargaining unit in nonpay
       status, not in excess of thirty (30) calendar days, if that thirty
       day period encompasses an official school recess period other than
       the summer recess period.
 
          (Only the underscored portions are in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that these proposals conflict with provisions of
 the DSSRs -- Government-wide regulations.  It additionally asserts that
 Proposal 33 does not concern conditions of employment of bargaining unit
 employees.
 
    The Union contends that the DSSRs are not Government-wide regulations
 and it disputes the Agency's assertion that Proposal 33 does not concern
 conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees.  As to Proposal
 34, the Union contends that even assuming that the DSSRs are
 Government-wide regulation this proposal does not conflict with them.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
                              1.  Proposal 32
 
    Insofar as the proposal relates to post differentials, it is
 inconsistent with section 052.2 of the DSSRs, which requires the Agency
 to terminate post differentials of employees in a nonpay status.
 Insofar as it relates to living quarters allowances, the Agency asserts
 and the Union tacitly concedes that the proposal seeks continuation of
 the allowances without regard to the time limitations set forth in
 section 051.2 and 132.2 of the DSSRs.  See notes 35 and 36.  In view of
 this, we find that the proposal also conflicts with the DSSRs as to the
 living quarters allowances.
 
    Based on these reasons we find that Proposal 32 is not within the
 duty to bargain.
 
                              2.  Proposal 33
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal would effectively require
 payment of allowances and differentials to former employees after they
 have been separated by reason of their retirement.  /37/ The Union does
 not dispute this.  With minor exceptions, the DSSRs authorize payment of
 allowances and differentials to "employees." For example, see sections
 031.1 (note 3), 031.2 (note 23) 031.3 (note 25), 051 (note 30).  Under
 the DSSRs a retiree is not an "employee." /38/ Moreover, section 132.42
 of the DSSRs expressly requires termination of a separated employee's
 living quarters allowance at the end of last day of his/her employment.
 See note 28.  Consequently, we conclude that this proposal is
 inconsistent with the DSSRs -- Government-wide regulations -- and is
 nonnegotiable.
 
                              3.  Proposal 34
 
    Insofar as this proposal would require continuation of post
 differentials while an employee is in nonpay status, it conflicts with
 section 052.2 of the DSSRs, which requires those payments to be
 suspended while an employee is in a nonpay status.  See note 34.
 Consequently, that aspect of the proposal is inconsistent with a
 Government-wide regulation and is nonnegotiable.
 
    Insofar as the proposal relates to continuation of living quarters
 allowances, however, we find that it is negotiable.  The Agency contends
 that this aspect of the proposal conflicts with the DSSRs because it
 would preclude a determination required in section 132.2 that
 continuation of living quarters allowance during periods of up to 30
 days when an employee is in a nonpay status is in the public interest.
 The Union explains the proposal as effectively seeking a determination
 that continuation of a living quarters allowance while an employee is in
 a nonpay status is, under the specified circumstances, in the public
 interest.  The Authority has held that where a determination as to
 whether a matter concerning a condition of employment is in the public
 interest is within the Agency's discretion, the exercise of that
 discretion is subject to bargaining.  That is, of course, unless it is
 demonstrated that the discretion is intended to be sole and exclusive.
 See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Local 3525 and United States Department of Justice, Board of Immigration
 Appeals, 10 FLRA 61 (1982) (Proposal 1).  There is no demonstration here
 that the Agency's discretion under section 132.2 to determine that the
 payments in question are in the "public interest" is sole and exclusive.
  We therefore reject the Agency's argument that this aspect of the
 proposal is inconsistent with the DSSRs.
 
    We find that insofar as Proposal 34 applies to post differentials it
 is nonnegotiable.  Insofar as it applies to living quarters allowances
 it is negotiable.
 
                           XXVIII.  Proposal 35
 
                  Section 4. -- Transportation Agreements
 
          A.  Bargaining unit employees shall be entitled to return
       transportation for locally acquired dependents.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that to the extent that this proposal would
 require granting transportation agreements to local hires and part-time
 employees it conflicts with the FTRs and the JTRs.  The Union states
 that the intent of this proposal is to overcome a distinction which the
 Agency currently makes between an employee's dependents who are
 "acquired" stateside and those "acquired" while overseas.  It states
 that the proposal does not seek to expand eligibility for transportation
 agreements to types of employees not already eligible.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    The Union's explanation of the proposal is compatible with the
 proposed language and we adopt it for the purpose of this decision.
 Hence, we find that the proposal does not conflict with provisions of
 the FTRs, or JTRs, which restrict granting transportation agreements to
 either local hires or part-time employees.  As explained by the Union,
 the proposal would only apply to those employees who are already
 eligible for transportation agreements.  Thus, insofar as local hires
 and part-time employees are not eligible for transportation agreements
 they are not covered by this proposal.  As to eligible employees, it
 only is concerned with which of their dependents would receive return
 transportation.  In view of this interpretation of the proposal, the
 Agency's argument that it conflicts with the FTRs and JTRs is rejected.
 By extension, its allegation that this proposal is nonnegotiable has not
 been sustained.
 
                            XXIX.  Proposal 36
 
          B.  Bargaining unit employees shall be entitled to enter into a
       transportation agreement when their sponsoring spouse retires,
       resigns or otherwise leaves the employment or service of the
       United States.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency makes the same argument here as it made with respect to
 Proposal 35, that insofar as the proposal would apply to local hires and
 part-time employees, it conflicts with the FTRs and the JTRs.  The Union
 indicates that this proposal is directed at those employees who at the
 time of their hire are not entitled to a transportation agreement
 because of their status as a dependent of someone who is entitled to
 one.  Under this proposal, these employees would become entitled to a
 transportation agreement, in their own right, when the sponsoring spouse
 retires, resigns or otherwise leaves the employment or service of the
 United States.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    A transportation agreement covers, among other things, Renewal
 Agreement Travel (RAT) which was discussed in conjunction with Proposals
 18 and 19 above.  See, for example, Janet L. Acker v. United States, 6
 Cl. Ct. 503 (Cl. Ct. 1984).  Moreover the Union's statement of intent
 accompanying its petition in this case, indicates that this proposal is
 intended to encompass RAT.  Under the FTRs, a local hire whose presence
 overseas is a consequence of marriage to, among others, an employee of
 the Foreign Service, a member of the uniformed services, or a private
 individual is not eligible for RAT.  /39/ Inasmuch as Proposal 36, by
 its language and intent, would entitle bargaining unit employees,
 including local hires, to RAT without regard to whether their presence
 in the geographical area is attributable to their marital status, the
 proposal is inconsistent with the FTRs.  In conjunction with proposal 6
 we ruled that Chapter 2 of the FTRs are Government-wide regulations.
 Consequently, Proposal 36 is not within the duty to bargain.
 
    As discussed in conjunction with Proposal 2, the Agency has not
 demonstrated that a compelling need exists for the JTRs.  Therefore, its
 argument that the JTRs bar negotiations on this allegedly conflicting
 proposal is not supported.
 
                         XXX.  Proposals 37 and 38
 
                               (Proposal 37)
 
                Section 5 -- Special Incentive Differential
 
          A.  All bargaining unit employees shall be entitled to a
       special incentive differential when stationed at a hardship post.
       Employees on temporary duty at such posts shall also be entitled
       to a special incentive differential.
 
                               (Proposal 38)
 
          B.  The locations at which bargaining unit employees shall be
       entitled to special incentive differentials shall be subject to
       negotiations and agreed upon by the Association and the Employer.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that these two proposals are nonnegotiable because
 they conflict with the DSSRs.  The Union contends that the DSSRs do not
 bar negotiation of inconsistent proposals because they are not
 Government-wide regulations.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The Special Incentive Differentials to which these proposals refer is
 authorized by 5 U.S.C. Section 5925(b).  /40/ It may be paid to
 employees assigned to a post determined to have especially adverse
 conditions of environment.  It may be paid under regulations prescribed
 by the President governing, among other things, the rates of payment,
 and the foreign areas, groups of positions and categories of employees
 to which the rates apply.  /41/ Under Executive Order 10903, as amended,
 the President delegated his authority in this regard to the Secretary of
 State.  /42/ The Secretary of State has typically exercised this
 authority through issuance of the DSSRs.  See Overseas Education
 Association, Inc. and Department of Defense, Office of Dependents
 Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 2).  References to Special
 Incentive Differentials occur in various portions of the DSSRs and the
 index to the DSSRs indicates that Chapter 570, entitled "Special
 Incentive Differential," is to be inserted at a later date.
 
    As to the Agency's assertion that these two proposals are in conflict
 with various portions of the DSSRs, we find that based on the current
 DSSRs the contention can be sustained only as it relates to local hires
 and part-time employees.  Section 031.2 (note 23) specifically limits
 payment of Special Incentive Differentials to employees who are eligible
 for quarters allowances under section 031.1.  That section (note 3)
 limits the circumstances under which local hires may receive quarters
 allowances.  Section 031.5 (note 5) precludes payment of Special
 Incentive Differentials to part-time employees.  Because the first
 sentence of Proposal 37 would require payment to local hires and
 part-time employees without regard to these restrictions, it is
 inconsistent with the DSSRs.  As noted in conjunction with Department of
 Defense Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal
 2), the DSSRs are Government-wide regulations.  Sentence 1 of Proposal
 37 is therefore not within the duty to bargain.
 
    The Agency has not established that either the second sentence of
 Proposal 37 or Proposal 38 conflicts with the DSSRs and no conflict is
 otherwise apparent to us.  However, we note that under 5 U.S.C. Section
 5922(c) and implementing Executive Order E.O. 10903, as amended,
 authority over where, to whom, and the rate at which Special Incentive
 Differentials will be paid has been vested in the Secretary of State.
 We conclude that the Agency has no independent discretion to determine
 these matters and that its discretion therefore is limited to making
 recommendations to the Secretary of State.  The Agency's obligation to
 bargain over these matters is limited to the extent to which it has
 discretion, even if its discretion is limited to making such requests
 and/or recommendations.  See American Federation of State, County and
 Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.,
 7 FLRA 578 (1982) (Proposals XI-XVI), enf'd sub nom. Library of Congress
 v. FLRA, 699 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983).  Of course, insofar as the
 Secretary of State has final authority under law, agreement between the
 parties herein cannot bind the Secretary.
 
    Based on these reasons and those expressed more fully in Library of
 Congress we conclude that Proposal 37, sentence 2 and proposal 38 are in
 the context of the described circumstances within the duty to bargain.
 
                            XXXI.  Proposal 39
 
                     Section 6 -- Danger Pay Allowance
 
          All bargaining unit employees in Korea and at other locations
       designated as danger pay posts by the Secretary of State or agreed
       to from time to time based on changed circumstances by the
       Association and the Employer shall be entitled to a Danger Pay
       Allowance.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that this proposal is nonnegotiable because it
 conflicts with the DSSRs.  The Union argues that the DSSRS are not
 Government-wide regulations.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    Danger pay is authorized by 5 U.S.C. Section 5928 for employees
 serving in foreign areas subject to civil insurrection, civil war,
 terrorism or wartime conditions.  /43/ Authority to determine the
 specific rates and locations at which it may be paid has been vested in
 the Secretary of State.  See notes 41 and 42.  The Secretary of State
 has exercised this authority through the DSSRs.  /44/ As noted in
 conjunction with Department of Defense Office of Dependent Schools, 22
 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 2), the DSSRs are Government-wide
 regulations.  As Proposal 39 would require payment of danger pay at
 posts which have not been designated as danger pay posts by the
 Secretary of State and the DSSRs, it is inconsistent with a
 Government-wide regulation and is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                          XXXII.  Proposals 40-44
 
                               (Proposal 40)
 
                     Section 7 -- Education Allowance
 
          (1) All employees in the bargaining unit shall be entitled to
       enroll their dependent children in tuition-fee schools of their
       choice in foreign areas at government expense and shall be
       reimbursed by the government for the transportation of their
       children to such schools if one or more of the following
       conditions exist:
 
          A.  Service-operated schools are operating at maximum capacity;
 
          B.  Daily commuting distance to a Service-operated school is
       unreasonable;
 
          C.  Traffic hazards or other conditions would involve undue
       hardships for the children concerned if they were required to
       attend a Service-operated school;  or
 
          D.  Adequate educational facilities are not available at the
       Service-operated school for "exceptional children" (e.g. those who
       are handicapped or who suffer from a learning disability).
 
                               (Proposal 41)
 
          (2) No employee will be compelled or asked to relocate his/her
       residence in order to alleviate an unreasonable commuting distance
       or commuting conditions which would involve hardships for the
       dependent child, and no employee shall lose eligibility for this
       tuition entitlement due to his/her unwillingness to change his/her
       residence.
 
                               (Proposal 42)
 
          (3) Employees shall be authorized roundtrip transportation
       (twice per calendar year) at government expense for each dependent
       attending an educational institution for higher learning.
 
                               (Proposal 43)
 
          (4) Any unit employee, upon retirement, shall be entitled to
       space-required, tuition-free education for all dependents, if the
       employee continues to reside overseas.
 
                               (Proposal 44)
 
          (5) Dependents of unit employees who are authorized attendance
       in an ODE/DODDS dependents school or an approved non-ODE/DODDS
       school may complete their education requirements if the sponsor
       dies or leaves the area and dependents remain overseas.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that these proposals do not concern conditions of
 employment.  As to Proposal 42, the Agency additionally argues that it
 conflicts with law and the DSSRs.  The Union argues that the proposals
 do concern conditions of employment.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
                              1.  Background
 
    Under 20 U.S.C. Section 906 and 5 U.S.C. Section 5924(4), teachers
 may receive payments to assist them with the expenses associated with
 providing an adequate education for their dependents.  /45/ Among the
 stated Congressional purposes underlying the provisions authorizing such
 payments were compensation of employees for additional expenses and
 hardships incident to duty overseas and facilitation of recruitment, and
 retention of employees for service overseas.  /46/ Moreover, the
 payments were viewed as an alternative to the availability of adequate,
 educational facilities at a particular post of duty.  /47/ In view of
 the existence of, and the purposes underlying, these legal provisions
 relating to education allowances, we conclude, generally, that insofar
 as these proposals relate to providing an adequate education to
 dependents of employees while they are assigned to overseas posts of
 duty they meet the second criterion for determining whether proposals
 concern conditions of employment which the Authority articulated in
 Antilles Consolidated School System.  See our discussion of Proposal 1.
 
                              2.  Proposal 40
 
    Proposal 40 sets forth circumstances under which employees would be
 allowed the option of using educational facilities other than dependents
 schools.  This proposal principally focuses on bargaining unit employees
 and, as just discussed, there is a direct connection between the
 proposal and the work situation or employment relationship of bargaining
 unit employees.  Therefore, we conclude that this proposal concerns
 conditions of employment.  See Department of the Air Force, Eielson Air
 Force Base, Alaska, 23 FLRA No. 83 (1986).  The Agency makes no
 assertion nor is there any other reason apparent for concluding that
 this proposal conflicts with the provisions of law which govern payment
 of education allowances.  See notes 45 and 47.  Based on these reasons,
 Proposal 40 is within the duty to bargain.
 
                              3.  Proposal 41
 
    Proposal 41 is principally focused on bargaining unit employees and
 is directly connected to the work situation or employment relationship
 of those employees.  It, too, is within the duty to bargain.
 
                              4.  Proposal 42
 
    Like Proposals 40 and 41, this proposal concerns conditions of
 employment.  However, it is inconsistent with Federal law.
 Specifically, 5 U.S.C. Section 5924(4)(B) authorizes payment of travel
 expenses for only one annual trip each way for each dependent to obtain
 an American secondary or undergraduate college education.  See note 45.
 Inasmuch as the DSSRs mirror this limitation, /48/ the proposal is also
 inconsistent with a Government-wide regulation.  Proposal 42 is not
 within the duty to bargain.
 
                              5.  Proposal 43
 
    This proposal is like Proposal 22 in that it would apply to former
 employees who have retired.  For the reasons expressed in conjunction
 with Proposal 22, we find that this proposal does not concern conditions
 of employment of bargaining unit employees and is, consequently, not
 within the duty to bargain.
 
                              6.  Proposal 44
 
    This proposal would permit dependents to complete their education
 requirements overseas in the event that the sponsoring employee dies or
 leaves the overseas area.  As noted earlier, the purpose of the legal
 provisions which form the basis for finding that proposals relating to
 dependents' education concern conditions of employment is compensating
 employees for hardships and additional expenses incident to their
 service overseas as well as facilitating recruitment and retention of
 employees in overseas posts of duty.  Given the circumstances specified
 in this proposal -- that an employee is no longer serving in an overseas
 post of duty -- any relationship to this purpose or to the legal
 provisions is not apparent.  Moreover, the Union has provided no
 evidence and the record does not otherwise provide a basis for
 concluding that there is a direct connection between allowing a
 dependent continued access to overseas educational facilities after the
 employee's assignment overseas has terminated and service overseas.  See
 Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA No. 23 (1986).  Thus,
 Proposal 44 does not concern conditions of employment and is outside the
 Agency's obligation to bargain.
 
                           XXXIII.  Proposal 45
 
                       Section 8 -- Storage of Goods
 
          A bargaining unit employee shall be permitted storage of
       household goods until he/she is offered or acquires housing at
       his/her new duty location without a limitation period.
 
          (Only the underscored portion of the proposal is in dispute.)
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency asserts that this proposal conflicts with the FTRs which
 place a time limitation on temporary storage of household goods and
 which preclude local hires from shipping and storing household goods.
 The Union acknowledges that, while time limits exist on temporary
 storage of household goods, none apply to nontemporary storage which is
 authorized under the FTRs.  Thus, it contends that this proposal is
 consistent with the FTRs.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The provisions of the FTRs which govern the payment of expenses for
 shipment and storage of household goods in conjunction with employee
 assignments to posts of duty outside the United States contain the
 following definition at FTRs, 2-1.4.e and f:
 
          e.  Temporary storage.  Storage of household goods for a
       limited period of time at origin, destination, or en route in
       connection with transportation to, from, or between official
       stations or posts of duty or authorized alternate points.
 
          f.  Nontemporary storage.  Storage of household goods while an
       employee is assigned to or is at an official station or post of
       duty to which he/she will not or cannot transport such household
       goods.
 
    Specifically, as to temporary storage the FTRs provide at FTRs
 2-8.2.c:
 
          c.  Temporary storage time limit.  The time allowable for
       temporary storage in connection with an authorized shipment of
       household goods shall not exceed a period of 90 days.  This time
       period also applies when an employee returns to his/her place of
       actual residence for leave before serving a new tour of duty
       outside the conterminous United States either at a different post
       of duty or at the same post of duty if the storage is provided
       instead of furnished quarters or a quarters allowance.  However,
       upon an employee's written request, the initial 90-day period may
       be extended an additional period not to exceed 90 days under
       certain conditions if approved by the agency head or his/her
       designee.  Justification for an additional storage period may
       include but is not limited to the following reasons:
 
          (1) An intervening temporary duty or long-term training
       assignment;
 
          (2) Nonavailability of suitable housing;
 
          (3) Completion of residence under construction;
 
          (4) Serious illness of employee or illness or death of a
       dependent;  or
 
          (5) Strikes, acts of God, or other circumstances beyond the
       control of the employee.
 
    The type of storage to which this proposal refers falls within the
 definition of "temporary storage" -- that which occurs in conjunction
 with shipment of household goods -- as opposed to nontemporary storage
 -- that which occurs in lieu of shipment.  We conclude that the
 regulatory provisions which govern temporary storage apply.  As noted
 above, the FTRs limit the amount of time during which temporary storage
 may be allowed.  The proposal conflicts with those limitations.  As
 discussed in conjunction with Proposal 6, chapter 2 of the FTRs is a
 Government-wide regulation.  Therefore, this proposal is not within the
 Agency's duty to bargain.  In view of this conclusion, we find it
 unnecessary to address the Agency's argument as to local hires.
 
                          XXXIV.  Proposals 46-49
 
                      Section 10 -- Shipment of Goods
 
                               (Proposal 46)
 
          A.  All unit employees shall be authorized the maximum weight
       allowance permitted by statute for the shipment of household and
       professional goods.  A maximum of 1,000 lbs. per family member
       shall be authorized for the shipment of unaccompanied baggage.
 
                               (Proposal 47)
 
          B.  The shipment of goods shall be authorized from a unit
       employee's initial point of hire or official residence to his/her
       duty station.  Return shipment shall be authorized from the
       employee's duty station to his/her point of hire or official
       residence.
 
                               (Proposal 48)
 
          C.  Transportation of goods shall be authorized between duty
       stations when unit employees are reached for reassignment.
       Partial shipments shall be authorized to a place of storage.
 
                               (Proposal 49)
 
          D.  Unit employees shall be authorized partial shipment of
       goods to and from a place of storage to and from their duty
       station or home of record as long as the shipments do not exceed
       their total statutorily authorized weight allowances.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency argues that all four proposals conflict with FTRs,
 2-1.5.h(3)(h), which it asserts precludes local hires from shipping and
 storing household goods.  As to Proposal 46, the Agency asserts that it
 conflicts with FTRs, 2-82.4.b, which requires a reduction in weight
 allowance where furnished or partially furnished quarters are provided.
 Additionally, it asserts that the baggage conflicts with the JTRs and
 is, consequently, outside the duty to bargain.  As to Proposal 47, the
 Agency argues that it conflicts with statutory (5 U.S.C. Section 5722)
 and implementing regulatory provisions which limit shipment of household
 goods to "place of actual residence." As to Proposal 49, the Agency
 argues that it conflicts with provisions of the FTRs which it describes
 as limiting shipments of household goods to the times at which an
 employee is appointed to, transferred to or from, or separated after
 completion of an established period of service at an overseas post of
 duty.
 
    In response to the Agency's overall contention as to the
 nonnegotiability of these proposals, the Union asserts that the Agency's
 reliance on FTRs, 2-1.5.h(3)(b) is misplaced because that provision
 applies only to Renewal Agreement Travel.  In response to the Agency's
 argument on Proposal 46, the Union contends that the FTRs grant agencies
 discretion, as opposed to mandating that they reduce weight allowances
 when furnished or partially furnished quarters are provided.
 Additionally, the Union asserts that the Agency has not demonstrated
 that a compelling need exists for the JTR provisions with which Proposal
 46 purportedly conflicts.  In response to the Agency's arguments on
 Proposal 49, the Union contends that the FTRs do not place any
 limitations on partial shipments of household goods where nontemporary
 storage is involved as it asserts is involved in this proposal.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
         1.  FTRs, 2-1.5h(3)(b) Does Not Bar Negotiation of These
 
                Proposals
 
    As the Union points out, FTRs, 2-1.5.h(3)(b) applies only to Renewal
 Agreement Travel.  See note 39.  Consequently, it has no relevance to
 transportation and/or storage of household goods.  See note 15.  It is
 inapplicable to these proposals and does not present a basis for finding
 them nonnegotiable.
 
                              2.  Proposal 46
 
    The FTRs require, where furnished or partially furnished quarters are
 provided, that agencies shall make an appropriate reduction in the
 weight of household goods to be authorized for shipment at Government
 expense.  /49/ The language of the regulation is plainly mandatory and
 the Union provides no basis for concluding that it grants discretion to
 agencies in this connection.  That portion of Proposal 46 which requires
 that the statutory maximum weight allowance be permitted notwithstanding
 the availability of furnished or partially furnished quarters therefore
 conflicts with the FTRs which, as we have ruled previously, are
 Government-wide regulations.
 
    As to the second sentence we find, as we discussed in conjunction
 with Proposal 2, that the Agency has not established that a compelling
 need exists for the JTRs.  Thus, no basis exists for finding that this
 portion of the proposal is nonnegotiable based on its alleged conflict
 with the JTRs.
 
    Based on these reasons, we find that the first sentence of Proposal
 46 is nonnegotiable and the second sentence is negotiable.
 
                              3.  Proposal 47
 
    As explained by the Union, Proposal 47 would permit, at the option of
 the employee, shipment of household goods between an overseas post of
 duty and his/her initial point of hire or "current official residence."
 Under governing statutory and regulatory provisions, employees are
 authorized shipment of household goods between their overseas post of
 duty and their place of actual residence at the time of appointment or
 assignment to a position overseas.  /50/ The FTRs authorize shipment
 involving an alternate origin or destination, but limit payment of the
 costs to that which would have been incurred had shipment been between
 duty station and actual place of residence.  The Union does not explain
 precisely what "current official residence" means.  On its face it does
 not appear to be necessarily synonymous with "place of actual residence"
 at the time of appointment or assignment overseas.  Moreover, in
 allowing employees to choose an alternative destination, that is,
 current official residence or "initial point of hire," the proposal does
 not allow for recognition of the regulatory requirement that payments
 must be limited to that which would have been incurred had shipment been
 to "place of actual residence" at the time of assignment overseas.  We
 conclude that, as written, Proposal 47 is inconsistent with statute -- 5
 U.S.C. Sections 5722, 5724 -- and Government-wide regulations -- FTRs,
 2-1.5.g.  It is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                              4.  Proposal 48
 
    The only assertion which the Agency makes as to this proposal -- that
 it is inconsistent with FTRs, 2-1.5.h(3)(h) -- was discussed and
 rejected in subsection B(1) above.  Absent any other apparent basis for
 finding otherwise, this proposal is within the duty to bargain.
 
                              5.  Proposal 49
 
    By its terms, this proposal would allow employees partial shipment of
 household goods to and from place of storage, their duty station, or
 home of record subject only to statutory weight limitations.  It is
 inconsistent with the FTRs in two respects.
 
    First, the FTRs require that where both transportation and
 nontemporary storage of goods are involved the weight of the goods
 stored plus the weight of those shipped shall not exceed the maximum
 allowable weight allowance.  /51/ The proposal would allow employees to
 exceed this limitation by permitting shipment of goods up to the maximum
 weight allowance notwithstanding the fact they also had goods in
 nontemporary storage.
 
    Second, the FTRs limit Government payment of costs associated with
 transportation of household goods to the cost of transporting the
 property in one lot.  /52/ The proposal would allow employees to exceed
 this limitation by permitting multiple shipments of goods subject only
 to a weight limitation.
 
    Based on these reasons, we find that Proposal 49 conflicts with
 Government-wide regulations and is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                               XXXV.  Order
 
    The Agency shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the
 parties) bargain concerning Proposals 1 (sentences 1 and 4);  3;  5
 (sentence 1);  7;  10;  12;  13;  14;  15 (insofar as it concerns use of
 military transportation);  17;  18 (except subsection 1);  21;  28
 (sentence 2);  30;  31 (insofar as it concerns living quarters
 allowance);  34 (insofar as it concerns living quarters allowance);  35;
  37 (sentence 2);  38;  40;  41;  46 (sentence 2);  and 48.  /53/ The
 Union's petition for review is dismissed as to Proposals 1 (sentences 2
 and 3);  2;  5 (sentence 2);  6;  8;  9;  11;  15 (insofar as it
 concerns payment for use of commercial transportation);  16;  18
 (subsection 1);  19;  22;  23;  24;  25;  26;  27;  28 (sentence 1);
 29;  31 (insofar as it concerns post differential);  32;  33;  34
 (insofar as it concerns post differential);  36;  37 (sentence 1);  39;
 42;  43;  44;  45;  46 (sentence 1);  47;  and 49.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., June 24, 1987.
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                     DECISION AND ORDER ON PROPOSAL 20
 
                         Section 7 -- Duty Travel
 
          An employee shall be paid the normal daily pay rate while
       traveling at the direction of government orders.  An employee
       traveling from his/her home of record in the United States at the
       direction of government to his/her overseas place of duty shall be
       paid the normal daily pay rate from the start of travel up to, but
       not including, the first day of the school year.  Saturdays,
       Sundays, and holidays will not be pay days unless in actual travel
       status on those days.  An employee entitled to government travel
       to the United States to his/her home of record at the close of the
       school year shall, in addition to the normal daily rate of pay for
       travel days, be entitled to daily pay for each day after the
       school year ends that the employee's return to his/her home of
       record in the United States is delayed through no fault of the
       employee.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency argues that this proposal is not within the duty to
 bargain because it concerns a matter which is specifically provided for
 by statute -- that is, salary practices of overseas teachers are
 governed by 20 U.S.C. Section 903.  Further, because it concerns travel
 to and from an employee's home of record, which is not required by the
 Agency and occurs when the employee is in non-pay status, the Agency
 claims that the proposal does not concern a condition of employment.
 Insofar as it would apply to newly recruited teachers who are not
 "formally" employees, it does not concern conditions of employment
 within the bargaining unit.  The Union contends that the proposal
 concerns conditions of employment and that it does not concern a matter
 specifically provided for by the Department of Defense Overseas Teachers
 Pay and Personnel Practices Act.
 
                       B.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
           1.  This Proposal Does Not Concern a Matter Which Is
 
                Specifically Provided for by Statute
 
    The Department of Defense Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel
 Practices Act governs, among other things, the compensation of teachers.
  It requires that basic compensation be fixed at rates equal to the
 average of the range of rates of basic compensation for similar
 positions in urban school jurisdictions in the United States of 100,000
 or more population.  20 U.S.C. Section 903.  It also requires that the
 Secretary of Defense implement regulations governing, among other
 things, the fixing of basic compensation of teachers subject to the
 above-described provisions set forth in 20 U.S.C. Section 903;  the
 entitlement of teachers to compensation;  and the payment of
 compensation to teachers and "additional compensation" for teachers.  20
 U.S.C. Section 902.  Thus, while the statutory provisions relating to
 overseas teachers dictate certain constraints within which basic
 compensation of teachers must be set, it also vests the Department of
 Defense with discretion as to other matters relating to teachers'
 compensation.  See March v. United States, 506 F.2d 1306 (D.C. Cir.
 1974);  and Overseas Education Association and Department of Defense
 Dependents Schools, 3 FLRA 676 (1980).
 
    We find that this proposal does not relate to the specific
 requirements as to the computation of basic compensation rates for
 teachers contained in the Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices
 Act.  Rather, it concerns the matters which the law leaves to the
 discretion of the Department of Defense -- such as the entitlement of
 teachers to, and payment of, compensation and the provision of
 additional compensation.  See March v. U.S., 506 F.2d 1306 at 1319 and
 DODDS, 3 FLRA 676.  We reject the Agency's argument that this proposal
 concerns a matter which is specifically provided for by Federal statute.
 
         2.  As to Employees This Proposal Concerns Conditions of
 
                Employment
 
    This proposal is expressly limited to those employees travelling "at
 the direction of Government orders." Moreover, the Union's statement of
 intent indicates that this proposal is to apply to travel which is
 subject to "government travel regulations." Petition at 15.
 Additionally, the proposal itself and the Union's explanation indicate
 that it applies to travel between an employee's legal residence and
 overseas duty station.  Union Reply Brief at 38.  Given these
 circumstances, we conclude that this proposal is limited to
 circumstances where travel between the teachers' place of actual
 residence and duty station has been authorized by the employer in the
 context of the employment relationship.  Moreover, we note that several
 legal provisions authorize payment by the Agency of employee expenses
 incurred in travel between their place of actual residence and overseas
 post of duty.  For example, 5 U.S.C. Section 5722 authorizes payment of
 such expenses for new appointees;  5 U.S.C. Section 5724 authorizes
 payment of such expenses for employees transferring to an overseas post
 of duty;  and 5 U.S.C. Section 5728 authorizes payment of such expenses
 relating to RAT (see discussion of Proposals 18 and 19).  In view of
 these legal authorities, we conclude that the proposal, which concerns
 the periods during which travel directly relating to the employment
 relationship is accomplished, is directly connected to the employment
 relationship and concerns conditions of employment insofar as
 "employees" are concerned.
 
         3.  As to "New Appointees" the Record is Insufficient to
 
                Determine Whether or Not They Are "Employees"
 
    The Agency contends that the application of this proposal to new
 appointees is not within the duty to bargain because it does not concern
 conditions of employment of employees.  That is, these individuals who
 have not yet formally entered in to the Agency's employ.  Relying on a
 "workshop report" generated by the Agency's Pacific Region, the Union
 asserts that because a new hire's effective date of "appointment" is the
 date he/she enters into travel status the proposal concerns conditions
 of employment within the bargaining unit.
 
    This aspect of the proposal relates to individuals who are travelling
 under authority of 5 U.S.C. Section 5722 as "new appointees" to an
 overseas post of duty.  The question is whether they are "employees."
 
    There is a difference between being an appointee and an employee.
 Typically the courts draw the line using the criteria set out in 5
 U.S.C. Section 2105(a) which provides:
 
                          Section 2105.  Employee
 
          (a) For the purpose of this title, "employee", except as
       otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified,
       means an officer and an individual who is --
 
          (1) appointed in the civil service by one of the following
       acting in an official capacity --
 
          (A) the President;
 
          (B) a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;
 
          (C) A member of a uniformed service;
 
          (D) an individual who is an employee under this section;
 
          (E) the head of a Government controlled corporation;  or
 
          (F) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned
       under section 709(c) of title 32;
 
          (2) engaged in the performance of a Federal function under
       authority of law or an Executive act;  and
 
          (3) subject to the supervision of an individual named
 
          by paragraph (1) of this subsection while engaged in the
       performance of the duties of his position.
 
    They also have generally held that all three criteria of this
 statutory definition must be met to qualify as a Federal employee as
 opposed to an appointee.  See McCarley v. Merit System Protection Board,
 757 F.2d 278 (Fed. Cir. 1985);  and National Treasury Employees Union v.
 Reagan, 663 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1981).  The definition of "employee" set
 forth in section 7103(a)(2) of the Statute does not require that an
 "appointee," who does not meet these three criteria, must be considered
 an "employee" for the purpose of inclusion in a bargaining unit.
 
    The document on which the Union relies to support its assertions as
 to "effective date of appointment" does not provide an adequate basis on
 which to conclude that "new appointees" are actually "employees" while
 enroute to their post of duty.  Nor has the Agency provided adequate
 support for its assertion that they are not "employees" at such time.
 Thus, there is no basis in the record of this case for concluding
 whether or not newly recruited teachers traveling under authority of 5
 U.S.C. Section 5722 are "employees" while enroute between their place of
 actual residence at the time of appointment and their overseas place of
 employment.  Consequently, we are unable to conclude whether or not this
 proposal, insofar as it relates to newly recruited teachers travelling
 under authority of 5 U.S.C. Section 5722, concerns conditions of
 employment of bargaining unit employees.  We reiterate that the parties
 are responsible for creating the record upon which we will resolve
 negotiability disputes.  National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
 1677 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir.
 1982).  A party failing to assume this burden acts at its peril.
 
    Moreover, we cannot conclude that even if the new recruits are not
 employees, the proposal is still sufficiently related to employment in
 the bargaining unit positions so as to bring it within the duty to
 bargain.  This aspect of the proposal relates solely to the pay status
 of new recruits while they are enroute to their first post of duty.  Its
 applicability and effect are limited to that period.  It is, in our
 view, distinguishable from the Authority's decisions in other cases as
 to proposals which, while having some applicability to individuals who
 are not employees, nevertheless directly relate to employment in
 bargaining unit positions.  Compare American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2024 and Department of the Navy, Portsmouth
 Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 11 FLRA 125 (1983).  In that
 decision the Authority found negotiable a proposal which related to
 setting rates of pay for members of the bargaining unit in the event
 they were released from employment and then subsequently reemployed.  In
 finding the proposal negotiable the Authority noted that it would apply
 only if and when reemployment in a bargaining unit position occurred.
 Also, compare Overseas Education Association, Inc. and Department of
 Defense Office of Dependent Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Proposal 1)
 petition for review filed sub nom. Overseas Education Association, Inc.
 v. FLRA, No. 86-1491 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 1986).  In that decision the
 Authority found a proposal negotiable which related to distributing
 orientation materials to prospective employees.  In doing so, the
 Authority noted that despite the fact that the individuals involved were
 not employees at the time, the proposal directly related to employment
 in bargaining unit positions.
 
                                 C.  Order
 
    The Agency shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the
 parties) bargain concerning Proposal 20 insofar as it concerns
 individuals who are employees.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., June 24, 1987.
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
            Separate Opinion of Chairman Calhoun on Proposal 20
 
    Proposal 20 concerns whether and to what extent teachers will be
 compensated during periods which precede and follow the normal school
 year.  In my view the Congress had ample opportunity to express its
 intent that pay and the fixing of compensation are appropriate subjects
 of bargaining for teachers employed by the Department of Defense
 Dependents School System.  To this date it has not.  Rather the Congress
 elected to give authority to the Secretary of Defense under 20 U.S.C.
 Section 902 to issue regulations governing among other things (1) fixing
 of basic compensation for teachers, (2) the entitlement of teachers to
 compensation, (3) the payment of compensation, and (4) the length of the
 school year.  The Secretary's discretion is circumscribed only by the
 standards set forth in that section.  See March v. United States, 506
 F.2d 1306, 1318 n.56 (D.C. Cir. 1974).  See also Overseas Federation of
 Teachers v. United States, 674 F.2d 34 (D.C. Cir. 1982).  It is my view
 that the Secretary's discretion is exclusive and not subject to
 negotiations absent a clear expression of Congressional intent to the
 contrary.  See my opinion in American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1897 and Department of the Air Force, Eglin
 Air Force Base, Florida, 24 FLRA No. 41 (1986).  I am unable to discover
 such an expression in this case.
 
    To the extent that Proposal 20 concerns "new appointees," I concur
 with my colleagues that the record is not sufficient to determine
 whether the proposal concerns conditions of employment of bargaining
 unit employees.  See McCarley v. MSPB, 757 F.2d 278 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
 and National Treasury Employees Union v. Reagan, 663 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir.
 1981).
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., June 24, 1987.
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) By its Order dated June 30, 1986, the Authority denied the
 Agency's motion to consolidate Case Nos. 0-NG-840, 0-NG-850, 0-NG-950,
 0-NG-1115 and 0-NG-1227.
 
    (2) For example, those emanating from the Department of Defense
 Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act, 93 Stat. 213 (1959)
 and the Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act, 74 Stat. 792 (1960).
 
    (3) Section 031 of the DSSRs provides in relevant part:
 
                   031.  United States Citizen Employees
 
                         031.1 Quarters Allowances
 
             *031.11 Employees Recruited in the United States
 
          Quarters allowances prescribed in Chapter 100 may be granted to
       employees who were recruited by the employing government agency in
       the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
       possessions of the United States.  In the case of married couples
       see section 134.13.
 
           *031.12 Employees Recruited Outside the United States
 
          Quarters allowances prescribed in Chapter 100 may be granted to
       employees recruited outside the United States, provided that
 
          a.  the employee's actual place of residence in the place to
       which the quarters allowance applies at the time of receipt
       thereof shall be fairly attributable to his/her employment by the
       United States Government;  and
 
          b.  prior to appointment, the employee was recruited in the
       United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the former Canal
       Zone, or a possession of the United States, by
 
          (1) the United States Government, including its Armed Forces;
 
          (2) a United States firm, organization, or interest;
 
          (3) an international organization in which the United States
       Government participates;  or
 
          (4) a foreign government;
 
          and has been in substantially continuous employment by such
       employer under conditions which provided for his/her return
       transportation to the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto
       Rico, the former Canal Zone, or a possession of the United States;
        or
 
          c.  as a condition of employment by a Government agency, the
       employee was required by that agency to move to another area, in
       cases specifically authorized by the head of . agency.
 
          Subsection 031.12b may be waived by the head of agency under
       determination that unusual circumstances in an individual case
       justify such action.
 
          An employee who was determined to be eligible to be granted a
       living quarters allowance under former section 031.12d, last
       effective March 25, 1971 and last published in TL:SR-174 dated
       August 11, 1968, may continue to be eligible for and be granted a
       living quarters allowance while continuously employed in a foreign
       area and while he/she is otherwise eligible for such allowance.
 
    (4) In finding that this portion of the proposal is inconsistent with
 the DSSRs, we express no opinion as to whether the regulatory provisions
 involved are inconsistent with the Department of Defense Overseas
 Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act as the Union suggests.  The
 Statute does not authorize us to rule on the legality or validity of
 Government-wide regulations.  See American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, National Council of Grain Inspection Locals v.
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, 794 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1986).
 However, we are aware that an identical contention has been rejected by
 the U.S. Court of Claims.  Acker v. United States, 620 F.2d 802 (Ct. Cl.
 1980).
 
    (5) Section 031.5 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                        *031.5 Part-time Employees
 
          Part-time employees (FPM-Chapter 316, sub-Chapter 4) shall not
       be granted allowances, post differential, special incentive
       differential, or advances of pay, but may be granted danger pay
       allowance, prescribed in Chapter 650 and compensatory time off
       prescribed in Chapter 800.
 
    (6) See Federal Personnel Manual, FPM Supplement 296-33, Subchapter
 35, 35-7, which contains the following definitions:
 
          PART-TIME SERVICE or PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT-Service when
 employee
       works on a part-time work schedule.
 
          PART-TIME WORK SCHEDULE-A schedule that requires an employee to
       work less than full-time, but for a specific number of hours
       (usually 16-32 hours per administrative work week) on a
       prearranged scheduled tour of duty.
 
    We recognize that these definitions may not be applicable to teachers
 in a literal sense given the realities of the teaching profession.
 However, we believe that the basic concept is applicable -- that is, a
 part-time employee is someone scheduled to work less than a full-time
 employee.
 
    (7) Section 132.43 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                  132.43 Occupancy of Government Quarters
 
          When an employee to whom an LQA has been granted is furnished
       Government-owned or -leased quarters at no personal cost, the
       grant shall terminate on the date immediately proceeding that on
       which the Government quarters are made available to him or her,
       unless he or she occupies Government-owned or -leased quarters
       only during the temporary absence of the regular occupant and at
       the same time is obliged to maintain his or her own quarters.
 
    (8) We also note that under 5 U.S.C. Section 5911(e) agencies are
 generally prohibited from requiring employees to occupy Government-owned
 or leased quarters in the United States on a rental basis.  However, no
 similar prohibition has been attached to 5 U.S.C. Section 5912 which
 provides that an employee permanently stationed in a foreign country may
 be furnished, without cost, living quarters in Government-owned or
 rented buildings.
 
    (9) Accord 52 Comp. Gen. 293 (1972) in which the Comptroller General
 held that payment for moving expenses pursuant the title 5 provisions
 upon which we rely could only be made when an employee is transferred or
 assigned to a new official station.  However the Comptroller General
 held, in circumstances involving a local move and no change in station,
 payment of moving expenses may be made as an administrative expense of
 operating an installation where the move has resulted from the
 Government having ordered the move for the Government's convenience.
 Even under this interpretation, the proposal would not be negotiable
 inasmuch as the discretion allowed an agency to pay moving expenses does
 not extend to circumstances where the move is for the convenience or
 benefit of the employee.
 
    (10) 5 U.S.C. Section 5923 provides:
 
          Section 5923.  Quarters allowances
 
          When Government owned or rented quarters are not provided
       without charge for an employee in a foreign area, one or more of
       the following quarters allowances may be granted when applicable:
 
          (1) A temporary lodging allowance for the reasonable cost of
       temporary quarters incurred by the employee and his family --
 
          (A) for a period not in excess of 3 months after first arrival
       at a new post of assignment in a foreign area or a period ending
       with the occupation of residence quarters, whichever is shorter;
       and
 
          (B) for a period of not more than 1 month immediately before
       final departure from the post after the necessary evacuation of
       residence quarters.
 
          (2) A living quarters allowance for rent, heat, light, fuel,
       gas, electricity, and water, without regard to section 3324(a) and
       (b) of title 31.
 
          (3) Under unusual circumstances, payment or reimbursement for
       extraordinary, necessary, and reasonable expenses, not otherwise
       compensated for, incurred in initial repairs, alterations, and
       improvements to the privately leased residence of an employee at a
       post of assignment in a foreign area, if --
 
          (A) the expenses are administratively approved in advance;  and
 
          (B) the duration and terms of the lease justify payment of the
       expenses by the Government.
 
    (11) Union Reply Brief at 26.
 
    (12) 10 U.S.C. Section 2830 provides:
 
          Section 2830.  Occupancy of substandard family housing
 
                units
 
          (a)(1) A member of the uniformed services with dependents may,
       without loss of the member's basic allowance for quarters, occupy
       a substandard family housing unit under the jurisdiction of the
       Secretary of a military department.
 
          (2) Occupancy of a family housing unit under paragraph (1)
       shall be subject to a charge against the member's basic allowance
       for quarters in the amount of the fair rental value of the housing
       unit.  However, such a charge may not be made in an amount in
       excess of 75 percent of the amount of such allowance.
 
          (b) Subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
       Defense, the Secretary of a military department may lease
       substandard family housing units to members of any of the
       uniformed services for occupancy by such members.
 
          (c) In this section, "uniformed services" means the armed
       forces and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and
       of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
 
    (13) The FTRs provide in relevant part:
 
                    1-2.2.  Methods of transportation.
 
          a.  Authorized methods.  Methods of transportation authorized
       for official travel include railroads, airlines, helicopter
       service, ships, buses, streetcars, subways, and taxicabs;
       Government-furnished and contract rental automobiles and
       airplanes;  and any other necessary means of conveyance.
 
          b.  Selecting method of transportation to be used.  Travel on
       official business shall be by the method of transportation which
       will result in the greatest advantage to the Government, cost and
       other factors considered.  In selecting a particular method of
       transportation to be used, consideration shall be given to energy
       conservation and to the total cost to the Government, including
       costs of per diem, overtime, lost worktime, and actual
       transportation costs.  Additional factors to be considered are the
       total distance of travel the number of points visited, and the
       number of travelers.  As cited in 5 U.S.C. 5733, "The travel of an
       employee shall be by the most expeditious means of transportation
       practicable and shall be commensurate with the nature and purpose
       of the duties of the employee requiring such travel."
 
          b-1.  Traveler's cost liability when selected method is not
       used.  The traveler shall use the method of transportation
       administratively authorized or approved by the agency as most
       advantageous to the Government.  (See 1-2.2b.) Any additional cost
       resulting from use of a method of transportation other than that
       specifically authorized, approved, or required by regulation,
       e.g., contract air service (see 1-2.2c(1)(b)(i), below), shall be
       the traveler's responsibility.
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          d.  Permissive use of a privately owned conveyance.  When an
       employee uses a privately owned conveyance as a matter of personal
       preference and such use is compatible with the performance of
       official business, although not determined to be advantageous to
       the Government under 1-2.2c(3), such use may be authorized or
       approved provided that reimbursement is limited in accordance with
       the provisions of 1-4.
 
    (14) Accord.  Unpublished Decision of the Comptroller General,
 B-191190, March 16, 1979;  Unpublished Decision of the Comptroller
 General, B-168202, December 2, 1969.
 
    (15) 5 U.S.C. Section 5728 provides in relevant part:
 
       Section 5728.  Travel and transportation expenses;  vacation
 
                leave
 
          (a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, an
       agency shall pay from its appropriations the expenses of
       round-trip travel of an employee, and the transportation of his
       immediate family, but not household goods, from his post of duty
       outside the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii to the
       place of his actual residence at the time of appointment or
       transfer to the post of duty, after he has satisfactorily
       completed an agreed period of service outside the continental
       United States, Alaska, and Hawaii and is returning to his actual
       place of residence to take leave before serving another tour of
       duty at the same or another post of duty outside the continental
       United States, Alaska, and Hawaii under a new written agreement
       made before departing from the post of duty.
 
    (16) S. Rep. No. 1944, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1954 U.S.
 Code Cong. & Ad. News 3573.
 
    (17) FTRs, 2-2.4 provides:
 
          2-2.4.  Advance of funds.  Advance of funds may be made for per
       diem and mileage allowances as provided in 2-2.1, 2-2.2b, and
       2-2.3 except in connection with employees assigned to posts of
       duty outside the conterminous United States performing authorized
       or approved overseas tour renewal agreement travel.  Such advances
       may also be made upon return to the place of residence for the
       purpose of separation under the policies and procedures prescribed
       in 2-1.6a.
 
    (18) FTRs, 1-2.5b. provides:
 
          b.  Indirect-route or interrupted travel.  When a person for
       his/her own convenience travels by an indirect route or interrupts
       travel by direct route, the extra expense shall be borne by
       him/her.  Reimbursement for expenses shall be based only on such
       charges as would have been incurred by a usually traveled route.
       When transportation requests are used, they shall be issued only
       for that portion of the expense properly chargeable to the
       Government, and the employee shall pay the additional personal
       expense, including the Federal transportation tax.  (See
       1-11.5a(3).)
 
    (19) Chapter 2 of the FTRs provides in relevant part:
 
                     CHAPTER 2.  RELOCATION ALLOWANCES
 
                 PART 1.  APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL RULES
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
                     2-1.5 Eligibility and conditions
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
               h.  Overseas tour renewal agreement travel.
 
          Employees may be eligible to receive allowances for travel and
       transportation expenses for the purpose of returning home to take
       leave between tours of duty overseas as provided herein.
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
                  (2) Allowable travel and transportation
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          (b) Allowances.  These allowances are payable in accordance
       with the provisions of Chapter 1 and are limited to per diem
       instead of subsistence and transportation costs for the employee
       and transportation costs (but not per diem instead of subsistence)
       for his/her immediate family.  (See 2-2.1.) If a transfer is also
       involved, family per diem may be paid as authorized by 2-2.2b to
       the extent such per diem is payable incident to direct travel
       between posts of duty.
 
          (c) Alternative destination.  An employee and his/her family
       may travel to a location in the United States, its territories or
       possessions, Puerto Rico, or another country in which the place of
       actual residence is located other than the location of the place
       of actual residence;  however, an employee whose actual residence
       is in the United States must spend a substantial amount of time in
       the United States, its territories or possessions, or Puerto Rico
       incident to travel under 2-1.5h to be entitled to the allowance
       authorized.  The amount allowed for travel and transportation
       expenses when travel is to an alternate location shall not exceed
       the amount which would have been allowed for travel over a usually
       traveled route from the post of duty to the place of actual
       residence and for return to the same or a different post of duty
       outside the conterminous United States as the case may be.
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          PART 2.  ALLOWANCES FOR SUBSISTENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
 
    2-2.1.  For the employee.  Except as specifically provided in these
 regulations, per diem instead of subsistence expenses, transportation
 costs, and other travel expenses of the employee shall be allowed in
 accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5701-5709 and Chapter 1;  the
 maximum per diem rate allowable for travel within CONUS shall be the
 standard CONUS rate prescribed under 1-7.2 (see also 1-7.5a).  Within
 CONUS, the prohibition on paying per diem for travel of less than 10
 hours will apply to change of official station travel;  outside CONUS,
 then 10-hour exclusion does not apply (see 1-7.4b).  This part applies
 to travel of transferred employees, new appointees (including those
 covered in 2-1.5f), and employees assigned to posts of duty outside the
 conterminous United States in connection with either overseas tour
 renewal agreement travel or return travel to places of residence for the
 purpose of separation.
 
          2-2.2.  For members of an employee's immediate family.
 
    a.  Transportation.  Except as specifically provided in these
 regulations, allowable travel expenses for the employee's immediate
 family, including transportation, are governed by Chapter 1.  Travel of
 the immediate family may begin at the employee's old official station or
 some other point, or partially at both, or may end at the new official
 station or some other place selected by the employee, or partially at
 both.  However, the cost to the Government for transportation of the
 immediate family shall not exceed the allowable cost by the usually
 traveled route between the employee's old and new official stations.
 
    (20) 5 U.S.C. Section 5733 provides:
 
                     Section 5733.  Expeditious travel
 
          The travel of an employee shall be by the most expeditious
       means of transportation practicable and shall be commensurate with
       the nature and purpose of the duties of the employee requiring
       such travel.
 
    (21) S. Rep. No. 801, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1967 U.S.
 Code Cong. & Ad. News, 2258, 2288.
 
    (22) 10 U.S.C. Section 2301(d) provides in relevant part:
 
    (d) Instead of, or in addition to, detailing officers and
 noncommissioned officers on active duty under subsection (c)(1), the
 Secretary of the military department concerned may authorize qualified
 institutions to employ, as administrators and instructors in the
 program, retired officers and noncommissioned officers, and members of
 the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, whose qualifications
 are approved by the Secretary and the institution concerned and who
 request such employment, subject to the following:
 
          (1) Retired members so employed are entitled to receive their
       retired or retainer pay and an additional amount of not more than
       the difference between their retired pay and the active duty pay
       and allowances which they would receive if ordered to activde
       duty, and one-half of that additional amount shall be paid to the
       institution concerned by the Secretary of the military department
       concerned from funds appropriated for that purpose.
 
    (23) Section 031.23 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                          *031.2 Other Allowances
 
          Post allowances prescribed in subchapter 220, danger pay
       allowance prescribed in Chapter 650, and the compensatory time off
       prescribed in Chapter 800 may be granted to employees defined in
       section 040i.  Other cost-of-living allowances (supplementary post
       allowances, transfer allowances, home service transfer allowances,
       separate maintenance allowances, education allowances, and
       educational travel) and special incentive differential prescribed
       in subchapters 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 280, and Chapter 570,
       respectively, may be granted subject to exceptions contained in
       the foregoing chapters, only to those employees who are eligible
       for quarters allowances under section 031.1.  Employees of the
       Peace Corps shall not be eligible for allowances mentioned in this
       paragraph except as may be expressly authorized by the Director of
       the Peace Corps in amounts determined by him/her not in excess of
       those determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of
       Chapters 200, 570 and 650.
 
    (24) The Union's argument that teachers who teach less than a full
 instructional day are not "part-time" employees is rejected here for the
 same reasons expressed in conjunction with Proposal 2.
 
    (25) Section 031.3 of the DSSRs provides in relevant part:
 
                          031.3 Post Differential
 
          Post differential prescribed in Chapter 500 may be granted to
       employees who are described in sections 031.11 and 031.12,
       including married employees, and to employees officially stationed
       in the United States who are on extended detail (Sec. 541) in a
       foreign area, except that:
 
          a.  Post differential may not be granted to a non-spouse
       dependent employee who is a member of the household of another
       employee or of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces(.)
 
    (26) Chapter 500 of the DSSRs provides in relevant part:
 
                                CHAPTER 500
 
                             POST DIFFERENTIAL
 
                                510 GENERAL
 
                              511 Definitions
 
          For the purpose of this chapter
 
          a.  "Post Differential" means the additional compensation of
       10, 15, 20, or 25 percent over basic compensation granted pursuant
       to Title II, Part D, of the Overseas Differentials and Allowances
       Act (Public Law 86-707) and provisions of this chapter to
       employees (Secs. 031.3 and 040i) at differential posts.
 
          b.  "Differential post" means
 
          (1) a place listed individually in section 920 (of the DSSRs)
       for which a post differential rate other than zero is shown in
       column 7;  or
 
          (2) a place which is not listed individually in section 920 but
       which is located in a country or area for which a post
       differential rate other than zero is shown in column 7 of section
       920.
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
                                 512 Scope
 
          Post differential is designed to provide additional
       compensation to employees for service at places in foreign areas
       where conditions of environment differ substantially from
       conditions of environment in the continental United States and
       warrant additional compensation as a recruitment and retention
       incentive.
 
                      513 Basis for Post Differential
 
                           513.1 Classification
 
          A post differential is established for any place when, and only
       when, the place involves extraordinarily difficult living
       conditions, excessive physical hardship, or notably unhealthful
       conditions affecting the majority of employees officially
       stationed or detailed at that place.  Living costs are not
       considered in differential determination.
 
    (27) Section 136 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                      *136 Personally Owned Quarters
 
          a.  When quarters occupied by an employee are owned by the
       employee or the spouse, or both, an amount up to 10 percent of
       original purchase price of such quarters shall be considered the
       annual rate of his/her estimated expenses for rent.  Only the
       expenses for heat, light, fuel (including gas and electricity),
       water and in rare cases land rent, may be added to determine the
       amount of the employee's quarters allowance in accordance with
       section 134.  The payment of the rental portion of the allowance
       (up to 10 percent of purchase price) is limited to a period not to
       exceed ten years at which time the employee will be entitled only
       to the above utility expenses, plus land rent.
 
          b.  The following transactions shall not be considered to meet
       the intent of these regulations so as to warrant payment of the
       rental portion of living quarters allowance beyond the initial ten
       years period specified in Part a.:
 
          (1) sale or gift of quarters owned by the employee or the
       spouse, or both with employee remaining in the same quarters, or
 
          (2) the purchase or exchange and move to other quarters in
       daily commuting distance of the same post.
 
          Payment for utilities and (if necessary) land rent may be
       continued beyond the 10-year period.  The head of agency may waive
       provisions in Part b. in unusual circumstances.
 
    (28) Section 132.42 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                            *132.42 Separation
 
          When an employee is separated (Sec. 040r) while assigned to a
       post at which he/she has been granted an LQA, such grant shall
       terminate at the end of the last day of his/her employment (except
       as provided in sec. 132.2b(3).
 
    Section 040r provides:
 
          r.  "Separation" means termination of an employee's services
       with a government agency (including termination by resignation,
       retirement, or death).
 
    (29) See S. Rep. No. 1647, 86th Cong. 2d sess., reprinted in 1960
 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3338 which accompanied the Overseas
 Differentials and Allowances Act.  In discussing the provisions for
 payment of a living quarters allowance stated at 3339:
 
          The quarters allowance is paid as a reimbursement of allowable
       costs incurred up to established ceilings.  (Emphasis supplied.)
 
    (30) For example, the DSSRs provide in relevant part:
 
                          051 Allowance Payments
 
                          051.1 Determining Rate
 
          Methods for determining the rate of payment of each allowance
       granted to an employee in accordance with Chapters 100-300, 600
       and 850 are prescribed in subchapters dealing with each allowance.
 
                    (As to living quarters allowance:)
 
                         134 Determination of Rate
 
          Except as otherwise prescribed in sections 134, 136, and 137,
       an employee shall receive an allowance of his or her allowable
       quarters costs for items listed in sections 131.2 and 131.3, or
       the maximum rate for his or her post (sec. 040m) indicated in
       sections 920 and 932, whichever is less, unless the rate is
       revised by administrative action in accordance with sections
       134.2, 136 and 137.
 
                         (As post differentials:)
 
                             511.  Definitions
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          b.  "Differential post" means
 
          (1) a place listed individually in section 920 for which a post
       differential rate other than zero is shown in column 7 (.)
 
                      (As to danger pay allowances:)
 
                                 652 Scope
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          e.  Unless otherwise specified, the amount of the danger pay
       allowance shall be the maximum rate of 25 percent of basic
       compensation.
 
    Also Chapter 920 of the DSSRs sets forth specific rates for many
 overseas differentials and allowances.
 
    (31) For example, agencies are required to pay less than the full
 amount of the living quarters allowance, or withhold payment altogether
 when an employee lets or sublets his/her quarters or when there is a
 significant devaluation in the rate of exchange.  DSSRs, 134.2.
 Similarly an adjustment in the living quarters allowance is required in
 circumstances where the quarters occupied are owned by the employee or
 the spouse, or both.  DSSRs, 136.
 
    (32) Section 134.13 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                       134.13 Married Couples Rates
 
          a.  The following rates of quarters allowances may be granted
       to married couples residing together:
 
          (1) If both are civilian employees of the United States
       Government eligible for a quarters allowance (Secs. 031.11 and
       031.12) and have members of family (Sec. 040m), one employee at
       his or her option may receive the basic "with family" allowance
       rate plus increments for additional family members.  The other
       employee may receive the "without family" rate.  In determining
       the increment for additional family members both employees should
       be excluded.  Where the couple has no additional members of family
       each employee may be granted the "without family" rate.
 
          (2) If only one of the married couple is eligible for a
       quarters allowance from the United States Government, the "with
       family" rate may be granted to that employee plus increments for
       additional members of the family.
 
          (3) An employee eligible for a quarters allowance who is
       married to, and residing at the post with, a member of the
       military service of the United States may be granted the "without
       family" rate if the spouse in the military service draws a
       quarters allowance, the employee may be granted the "with family"
       rate plus increments for additional members of the family, except
       that no payment shall be made to the spouse of a member of the
       military service if the spouse resides with the member of the
       military service in Government-owned or leased quarters.
 
    (33) Section 040m provides in relevant part:
 
          m.  "Family" means one or more of the following relatives of an
       employee residing at his post, or who would normally reside with
       him at the post except for the existence of circumstances cited in
       section 262.1 warranting the grant of a separate maintenance
       allowance, but who does not receive from the Government an
       allowance similar to that granted to the employee and who is not
       deemed to be a dependent or a member of the family of another
       employee for the purpose of determining the amount of a similar
       allowance:
 
          (1) Spouse, excluding a spouse entitled to and receiving a
       similar allowance;
 
          (2) Children who are unmarried and under 21 years of age or,
       regardless of age, are incapable of self-support.  The term shall
       include, in addition to natural offspring, step and adopted
       children and those under legal guardianship of the employee or the
       spouse when such children are expected to be under such legal
       guardianship at least until they reach 21 years of age and when
       dependent upon and normally residing with the guardian.  (See
       subchapters 270 and 280 on education allowances and educational
       travel.)
 
    (34) Section 052.2 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                     052.2 Employees in Non-Pay Status
 
          Payment of post differential shall be suspended while an
       employee is in non-pay status.
 
    (35) Section 051.2 of the DSSRs provides:
 
                     051.2 Employees in Non-Pay Status
 
          All allowances granted under these regulations may continue
       during periods while the employee is in non-pay status not in
       excess of 14 calendar days at any one time.  For periods in
       non-pay status longer than 14 calendar days, payments under
       allowance grants are to be suspended as of the day the employee
       enters the non-pay status, and payment is not to be made for any
       part of such period, unless otherwise specifically provided in
       these regulations (Sec. 132.3b(2)).
 
    (36) Section 132.2 of the DSSRs provides in relevant part:
 
                        132.2 Continuance of Grant
 
          The LQA grant may continue, provided the employee maintains and
       pays for his/her quarters at the post:
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          b.  When the head of agency determines that continuance of the
       grant would be in the public interest
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          (2) while the employee is in non-pay status not in excess of 30
       calendar days at any one time.  For periods in non-pay status
       longer than 30 calendar days, payment shall be suspended as of the
       day the employee enters such status, and payment is not to be made
       for any part of such period.
 
    (37) Under 20 U.S.C. Section 904 not more than 75 days of leave may
 accumulate to the credit of a teacher at any one time.
 
    (38) Section 040i provides:
 
          i.  "Employee" means an individual employed in the civilian
       service of a government agency (including ambassadors, ministers,
       and members of the Foreign Service of the United States under the
       Department of State) who is
 
          (1) a citizen of the United States;  (except under sec. 312);
 
          (2) officially stationed in a foreign area, except as otherwise
       specifically provided in these regulations;
 
          (3) receiving basic compensation (See Sec. 040c) and
 
          (4) eligible for allowances or differential under sub-chapter
       030.
 
          No sex discrimination is implied or intended through use of
       male pronouns which may appear in these regulations.
 
    (39) FTRs, 2-1.5.h provides in relevant part:
 
    h.  Overseas tour renewal agreement travel.  Employees may be
 eligible to receive allowances for travel and transportation expenses
 for the purpose of returning home to take leave between tours of duty
 overseas as provided herein.  The provisions of 2-1.5h are applicable to
 employees serving tours of duty at posts of duty outside the United
 States.  These provisions are also applicable to employees serving tours
 of duty in Alaska or Hawaii but only under the conditions specified in
 2-1.5h(1)(b) and (c), below.  (Reference:  Pub. L. 97-253 approved
 September 8, 1982, and Pub. L. 97-346 approved October 15, 1982.)
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          (2) Allowable travel and transportation
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          (b) Allowances.  These allowances are payable in accordance
       with the provisions of Chapter 1 and are limited to per diem
       instead of subsistence and transportation costs for the employee
       and transportation costs (but not per diem instead of subsistence)
       for his/her immediate family.  (See 2-2.1.) If a transfer is also
       involved, family per die may be paid as authorized by 2-2.2b to
       the extent such per diem is payable incident to direct travel
       between posts of duty.
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
    (3) Limitations
 
                      (b) Local hires not eligible.
 
          (1) Married persons in area with spouse.  An employee hired
       locally is not eligible for allowances under 2-1.5h if he/she is
       married and is in the immediate geographic area because his/her
       spouse is in the area as a member of the Foreign Service, a member
       of the uniformed services (as defined in title 37 U.S.C.), a
       private individual, or an employee of a private individual or a
       non-Federal organization.
 
    (40) 5 U.S.C. Section 5925 provides:
 
                     Section 5925.  Post differentials
 
          (a) A post differential may be granted on the basis of
       conditions of environment which differ substantially from
       conditions of environment in the continental United States and
       warrant additional pay as a recruitment and retention incentive.
       A post differential may be granted to an employee officially
       stationed in the United States who is on extended detail in a
       foreign area.  A post differential under this subsection may not
       exceed 25 percent of the rate of basic pay.
 
          (b) Any employee granted a differential under subsection (a) of
       this section may be granted an additional differential for an
       assignment to a post determined to have especially adverse
       conditions of environment which warrant additional pay as a
       recruitment and retention incentive for the filling of positions
       at that post.  An additional differential for any employee under
       this subsection --
 
          (1) may be paid for each assessment to a post determined to
       have such conditions;
 
          (2) may be paid periodically or in a lump sum;  and
 
          (3) may not exceed 15 percent of the rate of basic pay of that
       employee for the period served under that assignment.
 
    (41) 5 U.S.C. Section 5922(c) provides:
 
    (c) The allowances and differentials authorized by this subchapter
 shall be paid under regulations prescribed by the President governing --
 
          (1) payments of the allowances and differentials and the
       respective rates at which the payments are made;
 
          (2) the foreign areas, the groups of positions, and the
       categories of employees to which the rates apply;  and
 
          (3) other related matters.
 
    (42) Executive Order No. 10903, as amended, provides in relevant
 part:
 
    By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of
 the United States Code (section 301 of Title 3, The President), and
 various provisions of law cited in the body of this order, and as
 President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
 
          Section 1.  The Secretary of State is hereby designated and
       empowered to perform the following-described functions without the
       approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
 
          (a) The authority vested in the President by section 5921(3) of
       Title 5, United States Code (par. (3) of this section), to
       prescribe regulations defining the term "employee".
 
          (b) The authority vested in the President by subchapter III of
       Chapter 59 of title 5 of the United States Code (this subchapter),
       to prescribe regulations, including the regulations referred to in
       sections 5922(b), 5922(c), and 5925(4)(B) of that title (sections
       5922(b), 5922(c), and 5924(4)(B) of this title) (governing,
       respectively, (1) certain waivers of recovery, (2) the payment of
       allowances and differentials authorized by said subchapter and
       certain other matters, and (3) travel expenses for dependents of
       certain employees.)
 
    (43) 5 U.S.C. Section 5928 provides:
 
                    Section 5928.  Danger pay allowance
 
          An employee serving in a foreign area may be granted a danger
       pay allowance on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war,
       terrorism, or wartime conditions which threaten physical harm or
       imminent danger to the health or well-being of the employee.  A
       danger pay allowance may not exceed 25 percent of the basic pay of
       the employee, except that if an employee is granted an additional
       differential under section 5925(b) of this title with respect to
       an assignment, the sum of that additional differential and any
       danger pay allowance granted to the employee with respect to that
       assignment may not exceed 25 percent of the basic pay of the
       employee.  The presence of nonessential personnel or dependents
       shall not preclude payment of an allowance under this section.  In
       each instance where an allowance under this section is initiated
       or terminated, the Secretary of State shall inform the Speaker of
       the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
       Relations of the Senate of the action taken and the circumstances
       justifying it.
 
    (44) Chapter 650 of the DSSRs provides in relevant part:
 
                                CHAPTER 650
 
                           DANGER PAY ALLOWANCE
 
                              651 Definitions
 
          For the purpose of this chapter
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
    b.  "Danger Pay Post" means:
 
          1.  A place listed individually in Section 920 which has been
       so designated by the Secretary of State.
 
          2.  A place which is not listed individually in Section 920 but
       which is located in a country or area which has been so designated
       by the Secretary of State.
 
    (45) 20 U.S.C. Section 906 provides in relevant part:
 
             Section 906.  Cost-of-living allowances and post
 
                differential
 
          (a) Under regulations which shall be prescribed by or under
       authority of the President, each teacher (other than a teacher
       employed in a substitute capacity) shall be entitled, in addition
       to basic compensation, to --
 
          (1) cost-of-living allowances equal to those authorized by
       section 5924 of Title 5 . . . .
 
    5 U.S.C. Section 5924(4) provides:
 
                 Section 5924.  Cost-of-living allowances
 
          The following cost-of-living allowances may be granted, when
       applicable, to an employee in a foreign area:
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          (4) An education allowance or payment of travel costs to assist
       an employee with the extraordinary and necessary expenses, not
       otherwise compensated for, incurred because of his service in a
       foreign area or foreign areas in providing adequate education for
       his dependents, as follows:
 
          (A) An allowance not to exceed the cost of obtaining such
       kindergarten, elementary and secondary educational services as are
       ordinarily provided without charge by the public schools in the
       United States, plus, in those cases when adequate schools are not
       available at the post of the employee, board and room, and
       periodic transportation between that post and the nearest locality
       where adequate schools are available, without regard to section
       3324(a) and (b) of title 31.  The amount of the allowance granted
       shall be determined on the basis of the educational facility used.
 
          (B) The travel expenses of dependents of an employee to and
       from a school in the United States to obtain an American secondary
       or undergraduate college education, not to exceed one annual trip
       each way for each dependent.  An allowance payment under
       subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (4) may not be made for a
       dependent during the 12 months following his arrival in the United
       States for secondary education under authority contained in this
       subparagraph (B).  Notwithstanding section 5921(6) of this title,
       travel expenses, for the purpose of obtaining undergraduate
       college education, may be authorized under this subparagraph (B),
       under such regulations as the President may prescribe, for
       dependents of employees who are citizens of the United States
       stationed in the Canal Zone.
 
    (46) The stated purpose of the Overseas Differentials and Allowances
 Act, which continued the existing authority for payment of education
 allowances was as follows:
 
                    TITLE I -- PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
 
                             PART A -- PURPOSE
 
    Sec. 101.  The Congress hereby declares that it is the purpose of
 this Act to improve and strengthen the administration of overseas
 activities of the Government by --
 
          (1) providing a means for more effectively compensating
       Government employees for the extra costs and hardships incident to
       their assignments overseas.
 
          (2) providing for the uniform treatment of Government employees
       stationed overseas to the extent justified by relative conditions
       of employment,
 
          (3) establishing the basis for the more efficient and equitable
       administration of the laws compensating Government employees for
       the extra costs and hardships incident to their assignments
       overseas, and
 
          (4) facilitating for the Government the recruitment and
       retention of the best qualified personnel for civilian service
       overseas.
 
    (Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act, Pub. L. No. 86-707
 Section 101, 74 Stat. 792 (1960))
 
    Additionally, the Senate Report which accompanied the bill which
 became that Act stated:
 
          The importance of sound and effective personnel policies in the
       conduct of our overseas programs is well recognized.  The success
       of such programs depends largely upon the employees engaged in
       carrying them out.  The effectiveness of their performance is
       directly related to the fairness and wisdom inherent in the
       policies under which personnel are employed.
 
          To this end, this bill advances the recognized principle that
       its civilian employees should be adequately reimbursed for
       additional expenses necessarily incurred because of their overseas
       services;  that they should be compensated for hardship,
       inconveniences, or other environmental and working conditions not
       encountered in the United States;  and that, insofar as
       practicable, these overseas employees should be compensated upon
       the basis of the same criteria without regard to the identity of
       the employing Federal agency.
 
    (S. Rep. No. 1647, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1960 U.S. Code
 & Ad. News 3338, 3339.
 
    (47) In discussing education allowances, the Senate Report
 accompanying the bill which became the Overseas Differentials and
 Allowances Act stated:
 
          Education allowances are granted only at those posts where the
       costs of adequate schooling in grades 1 through 12 are in excess
       of the costs that would be incurred for a child in a U.S. public
       school.
 
          If adequate schools are available at the post, no allowance is
       established for a school away from the post.
 
          If no adequate school exists at a post, an allowance rate is
       established that is based on the costs of attending the nearest
       and least expensive adequate school.
 
          If a U.S. Military Dependents' School is available at a post,
       no education allowance is paid for a child to attend any other
       school in a foreign country, unless special circumstances of
       illness or distance prevent attendance.
 
    (S. Rep. No. 1647, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., reprinted in 1960 U.S. Code &
 Ad. News 3338, 3344.
 
    (48) Chapter 280 of the DSSRs provides in relevant part:
 
                          280 EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL
 
                              281 Definitions
 
          For the purpose of this subchapter:
 
                       .   .   .   .   .   .   .
 
 
          e.  "Annual trip" means one round trip between post and school
       in the United States within one 12-month period of the defendant's
       schooling.  The round trip may be taken at any time in each
       12-month period.  Round trips or portions thereof not taken in
       each 12-month period cannot accumulate to a subsequent period.
 
                                 282 Scope
 
          Educational travel permits payment of travel expenses for a
       child to a school in the United States from the employee's post
       for secondary or college education and return to the post, once
       each way annually for each type of education except as otherwise
       provided in section 284.  Under certain conditions prescribed in
       section 284 such travel is authorized in addition to any other
       travel authorized for the child in connection with travel
       authorized for the employee.  No education allowance may be
       granted for certain periods following the child's arrival in the
       United States via educational travel.  (See Sec. 276.2).
 
                      283 Standards for Authorization
 
          Subject to the conditions in section 284, the head of agency
       may authorize payment or reimbursement to the employee for travel
       expenses for a child to a school in the United States from the
       employee's foreign post for secondary or college education and
       return to the post, once each way annually for each type of
       education.  The first educational travel trip for obtaining each
       type of education (secondary or college) must originate outside
       the United States except as otherwise provided in section 284.
       Column V (2).  Subsequent round trips may originate in the United
       States.
 
    (49) FTRs, 2-8.4 provides in relevant part:
 
          2-8.4.  Transportation outside the conterminous United
 
                States.
 
          a.  Coverage.  This paragraph contains the special rules which
       are applicable to the transportation of household goods at
       Government expense to, from, and between points outside the
       conterminous United States.  Individual eligibility is covered in
       2-1.2 and 2-1.5.
 
          b.  Weight limitation.  The maximum weights specified in 2-8.2
       are applicable;  however, where furnished or partly furnished
       quarters are to be provided outside the conterminous United States
       (in the case of a transfer to such a station) or have been
       provided (in the case of a return to the conterminous United
       States), agencies shall make an appropriate reduction in the
       weight of household goods which may be authorized for shipment at
       Government expense.
 
    (50) 5 U.S.C. Section 5722 provides in relevant part:
 
         Section 5722.  Travel and transportation expenses of new
 
                appointees;  posts of duty outside the continental United
 
                States.
 
          (a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe and
       subject to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, an agency may
       pay from its appropriations --
 
          (1) travel expenses of a new appointee and transportation
       expenses of his immediate family and his household goods and
       personal effects from the place of actual residence at the time of
       appointment to the place of employment outside the continental
       United States;  and
 
          (2) these expenses on the return of an employee from his post
       of duty outside the continental United States to the place of his
       actual residence at the time of assignment to duty outside the
       United States.
 
    5 U.S.C. Section 5724 provides in relevant part:
 
          (d) When an employee transfers to a post of duty outside the
       continental United States, his expenses of travel and
       transportation to and from the post shall be allowed to the same
       extent and with the same limitations prescribed for a new
       appointee under section 5722 of this title.
 
    FTRs, 2-1.5.g provides in relevant part:
 
    g.  Overseas assignment and return.
 
          (1) Transferees.  Employees transferred to, from, and between
       official stations outside the conterminous United States are
       eligible for many of the benefits provided by these regulations,
       and employees transferred to such stations are eligible for return
       transportation under the conditions and limitations contained in
       2-1.5g(3) through (6).  Specific eligibility provisions and
       applicable limitations are contained in the parts of these
       regulations relating to the benefits provided.
 
          (2) New appointees.
 
          (a) Residence at time of appointment.  A new appointee to a
       position outside the conterminous United States is eligible for
       certain travel and transportation benefits under these regulations
       if his/her residence at the t