28:0587(73)NG - IBEW, LOCAL NO. 611 VS INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMA



[ v28 p587 ]
28:0587(73)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


28 FLRA NO. 73

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
UNION NO. 611, AFL-CIO

                    Union

         and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
RIO GRANDE PROJECT

                     Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1161
 (26 FLRA No. 105)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This case is before the Authority based on the Agency's Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion.

In our decision we determined that a proposal which sought to provide for the continuation of Sunday premium pay for nonsupervisory, hourly operations and maintenance employees was within the Agency's duty to bargain. The employees negotiate their wages and premium pay provisions in accordance with section 704 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 1218, codified at 5 U.S.C. 5343 (Amendments) and section 9(b) of Pub. L. No. 92-392, codified at 5 U.S.C. 5343 (Amendments, note).

The Union sought to negotiate the subject after the Agency proposed to terminate the long-standing practice of providing premium pay compensation for work on Sunday on the ground that it was illegal because it was not in accordance with local prevailing pay practices. We found that the Agency's position lacked merit and ordered it to bargain over the proposal. In reaching this conclusion we determined that (1) the proposal concerns a condition of employment--namely premium pay--which was subject to negotiation prior to August 19, 1972, and (2) Sunday premium pay is negotiable, under the circumstances, whether or not it is a prevailing practice in the local area of the Agency's operation.

In its motion for reconsideration, the Agency contends that we (1) misapplied section 5341(l) of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act, 5 U.S.C. 5341(1), to prevailing rate employees whose wages and wage practices are negotiated pursuant to section 9(b) of the Prevailing Rate Systems Act and section 704 of the CSRA; and (2) misinterpreted section 704 of the CSRA to preserve negotiations for employees who had historically received Sunday premium pay.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish "extraordinary circumstances' to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Agency has not established "extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the arguments presented by the Agency in support of its request constitute nothing more than disagreement with the merits of our decision. We note that our conclusion that Sunday premium pay is