32:0057(7)CA - - IRS and NTEU - - 1988 FLRAdec CA - - v32 p57
[ v32 p57 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
32 FLRA No. 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Case No. 3-CA-80006
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, based upon a stipulation entered into by the Respondent, the Charging Party (the Union) and the General Counsel. The issue is whether the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by declaring nonnegotiable a Union proposal for payment by the Respondent for travel and per diem expenses of Union employee representatives. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by refusing to bargain on the Union's proposal.
The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's professional and non-professional employees. By letter dated June 12, 1987, Respondent requested that the Union submit proposals in connection with its implementation of a new post of duty. On June 19 and September 3, 1987, the Union submitted proposals to Respondent, including one which provides that Respondent will pay travel and per diem expenses for certain representational duties of two Union employee representatives. By letters dated September 10 and 14, 1987, Respondent declared the Union proposal concerning travel and per diem expenses to be nonnegotiable.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Respondent agrees that the language and meaning of the proposal in this case are similar to the proposal found to be negotiable by the Authority in National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 21 FLRA 6 (1986) (Customs), enforced sub nom. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service v. FLRA, 836 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1988), petition for rehearing en banc denied, No. 86-1198 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 13, 1988).
The Respondent acknowledges that the Authority's decision was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Respondent requests that the present case be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the Department of Justice's petition for rehearing en banc by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Customs.
In the alternative, the Respondent contends that the Union's proposal is nonnegotiable because it: (1) is inconsistent with the Travel Expense Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5701-5709, and the Federal Travel Regulations, 41 C.F.R. Part 101-7; (2) does not affect conditions of employment within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute; and (3) interferes with the Respondent's rights to determine its mission and budget under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the decisions in Customs and National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 21 FLRA 1101 (1986), petition for review filed sub nom. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service v. FLRA, No. 86-1373 (D.C. Cir. June 25, 1986), (IRS) are dispositive in this case. Accordingly, they argue that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by declaring the Union's proposal to be nonnegotiable in light of these decisions.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
An Agency violates section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute if it refuses to bargain over a proposal that is substantially identical to a proposal the Authority has previously determined to be negotiable. Internal Revenue Service, 28 FLRA 14 (1987), petition for review filed sub nom. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service v. FLRA, No. 87-1456 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 1, 1987); Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force Academy, 6 FLRA 548 (1981), affirmed sub nom. Department of the Air Force, United States Air Force Academy v. FLRA, 717 F.2d 1314 (10th Cir. 1983).
In Customs, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Authority's finding that a proposal requiring the employer to pay the travel expenses incurred by employees while using official time available under the parties' collective bargaining agreement was within the duty to bargain. The court found that the proposal concerned a condition of employment which was within the Agency's