United States Army Missile Materiel Readiness Command (USAMIRCOM) (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858, AFL-CIO (Union)  

 2 FLRA No. 60
 
 UNITED STATES ARMY MISSILE
 MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND
 (USAMIRCOM)
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1858, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
                                            Case No. 0-AR-7
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE
 AWARD OF ARBITRATOR J. THOMAS KING FILED BY THE UNION SECTION 7122(A) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C.
 7122(A)).
 
    ACCORDING TO THE AWARD, THE GRIEVANCE AROSE WHEN THE AGENCY CHANGED
 THE MANNER IN WHICH MONDAY HOLIDAYS WERE TO BE OBSERVED BY CERTAIN
 COMMISSARY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE A REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY OF TUESDAY THROUGH
 SATURDAY, WITH SUNDAY AND MONDAY AS THEIR NONWORK DAYS.  PRIOR TO THE
 SCHEDULE CHANGE, WHEN A HOLIDAY OCCURRED ON A MONDAY, THE COMMISSARY WAS
 CLOSED ON THE PRECEDING SATURDAY, THE EMPLOYEES WERE GIVEN SATURDAY OFF
 FOR THE HOLIDAY, AND THEY HAD SUNDAY AND MONDAY OFF AS THEIR DESIGNATED
 NONWORK DAYS.  BECAUSE SATURDAY WAS SUCH A BUSY SHOPPING DAY, HOWEVER,
 THE AGENCY DECIDED THAT THE COMMISSARY SHOULD BE KEPT OPEN ON SATURDAYS.
  THEREFORE A SCHEDULE CHANGE WAS EFFECTED SUCH THAT WHEN A MONDAY
 HOLIDAY OCCURRED, THE EMPLOYEES WERE SCHEDULED TO WORK ON THE PRECEDING
 SATURDAY, THEY WERE GIVEN SUNDAY AND TUESDAY OFF AS THEIR DESIGNATED
 NONWORK DAYS, AND MONDAY OFF FOR THE HOLIDAY.  THE UNION GRIEVED THE
 CHANGE IN THE WORK SCHEDULE, CONTENDING THAT THE AGENCY HAD VIOLATED
 ARTICLE XIII, /1/ SECTION 4 OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT.  THE MATTER ULTIMATELY WENT TO ARBITRATION.  THE ISSUE BEFORE
 THE ARBITRATOR WAS:
 
    DID THE ESTABLISHMENT BY THE COMMAND OF TUESDAY AS A NON-WORK DAY IN
 LIEU OF SATURDAY AS A
 
    HOLIDAY WHEN A HOLIDAY OCCURS ON A MONDAY VIOLATE ARTICLE XIII,
 SECTION 4., OF THE AGREEMENT
 
    SINCE THE TOUR OF DUTY WAS NOT CONTINUED FOR AT LEAST TWO PAY
 PERIODS?
 
    FINDING THAT THE AGENCY DID NOT VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT WHEN IT
 ESTABLISHED TUESDAY AS A NONWORK DAY IN LIEU OF SATURDAY AS A HOLIDAY
 WHEN A HOLIDAY OCCURRED ON A MONDAY, THE ARBITRATOR DENIED THE
 GRIEVANCE.  HE HELD THAT EMPLOYEES HAD NEITHER GAINED NOR LOST THE
 BENEFIT OF HAVING A DAY OFF, AND THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD SUFFERED NO
 ECONOMIC LOSS AND WERE THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO ECONOMIC RELIEF.  THE
 ARBITRATOR NOTED THAT THE COMMISSARY OFFICER, ACTING PURSUANT TO
 INSTRUCTIONS FROM HIS SUPERIORS, HAD THE PREROGATIVE TO ESTABLISH THE
 DAYS OFF DURING A HOLIDAY SEASON.
 
    BASED ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS "NORMAL BASIC TOUR OF DUTY,"
 "BASIC REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY," "NORMAL TOUR OF DUTY," AND "TOURS OF DUTY"
 AS USED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR FOUND
 THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE EMPLOYEES.  HE
 ADDED THAT HAD A DETERMINATION BEEN MADE THAT A CHANGE IN THE TOUR OF
 DUTY HAD TAKEN PLACE, THE NEED TO KEEP THE COMMISSARY OPEN ON SATURDAYS
 WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE
 AGREEMENT.
 
    THE UNION FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
 PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN 5 C.F.R. PART
 2411(1978), WHICH, TO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
 SECTION 7122(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7122(A)) AND AS AMENDED BY SECTION 2400.5 OF THE
 TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY (44 FED. REG. 44741), REMAIN OPERATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THIS
 CASE.  THE UNION SEEKS AUTHORITY ACCEPTANCE OF ITS PETITION ON THE BASIS
 OF THE EXCEPTIONS DISCUSSED BELOW.  THE AGENCY FILED AN OPPOSITION.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2411.32 OF THE AMENDED RULES AND SECTION 7122(A)
 OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY WILL GRANT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN
 ARBITRATOR'S AWARD WHERE IT APPEARS, BASED UPON THE FACTS AND
 CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION, THAT THE AWARD IS DEFICIENT
 BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO LAW OR REGULATION, OR ON OTHER GROUNDS SIMILAR
 TO THOSE APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS.
 
    IN ITS FIRST EXCEPTION THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES
 LAW.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXCEPTION THE UNION ASSERTS THAT WHEN A MONDAY
 HOLIDAY OCCURS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6103(B)(2) OF TITLE 5, UNITED
 STATES CODE, /2/ MANDATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRECEDING SATURDAY AS
 THE HOLIDAY FOR EMPLOYEES WHOSE REGULAR WORKWEEK IS TUESDAY THROUGH
 SATURDAY, AND THAT IN SANCTIONING THE SCHEDULE CHANGE, THE ARBITRATOR IS
 APPROVING A VIOLATION OF 5 U.S.C. 6103(B)(2).  THE UNION ALSO CONTENDS
 THAT BY NOT AWARDING PREMIUM PAY TO EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED ON THESE
 SATURDAYS, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED HOLIDAYS, THE AWARD IS
 CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5546(B) OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES
 CODE.  /3/ FINALLY, THE UNION ARGUES THAT THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO THIS
 LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
 
    THE AUTHORITY WILL GRANT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION
 AWARD WHERE IT APPEARS, BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED
 IN THE PETITION, THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES LAW.  HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE
 UNION HAS NOT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO SUPPORT
 ITS EXCEPTION.
 
    THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, IN WHICH THE
 ARBITRATOR ANSWERED THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM AND FOUND NO VIOLATION OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 6103(B)(2)
 WOULD APPEAR TO BE INAPPLICABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THUS
 THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE AGENCY MADE THE CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYEES'
 WORK SCHEDULE UNDER THE EXCEPTION IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6101(A)
 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.  /4/ IT WOULD APPEAR THAT 5 U.S.C.
 6103(B)(2), WHICH PERTAINS TO HOLIDAYS WHICH FALL ON EMPLOYEES'
 NONWORKDAYS, IS, ON ITS FACE, INAPPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE, BY
 MEANS OF A SCHEDULE CHANGE MADE PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 6101(A)(3), THE
 HOLIDAY FELL ON THE EMPLOYEES' WORKDAY.  THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF 5
 U.S.C. 5546(B) WOULD LIKEWISE BE INAPPLICABLE AS WOULD THE COMPTROLLER
 GENERAL DECISION CITED BY THE UNION.  THEREFORE, THE UNION'S FIRST
 EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW
 UNDER SECTION 2411.32 OF THE AMENDED RULES.
 
    THE UNION'S SECOND EXCEPTION ASSERTS THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES
 REGULATION.  TO SUPPORT ITS ASSERTION, THE UNION ARGUES THAT SINCE THE
 AWARD IS CONTRARY TO 5 U.S.C. 6103(B), IT IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE
 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 610.202(B) OF TITLE 5, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
 (C.F.R.), WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT "(W)HEN A HOLIDAY FALLS ON A
 NONWORKDAY OUTSIDE AN EMPLOYEE'S BASIC WORKWEEK, THE DAY TO BE TREATED
 AS HIS HOLIDAY IS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6103(B) OF TITLE
 5, UNITED STATES CODE . . . "
 
    IN EFFECT, THE UNION'S SECOND EXCEPTION MERELY REITERATES THE
 ARGUMENT MADE IN ITS FIRST EXCEPTION, NAMELY THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES 5
 U.S.C. 6103(B)(2).  AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THAT CONTENTION DOES NOT
 PROVIDE A BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW.
 THUS, THE UNION FAILS TO SUPPORT ITS SECOND EXCEPTION WITH APPROPRIATE
 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE FAILS TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR
 ACCEPTANCE OF ITS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AWARD VIOLATES
 REGULATION.
 
    IN ITS THIRD EXCEPTION, THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD DOES NOT
 DRAW ITS ESSENCE FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  IN SUPPORT
 OF ITS CONTENTION THE UNION ARGUES THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDING OF AN
 UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE IN REGARD TO THE AGENCY'S NEED TO KEEP THE
 COMMISSARY OPEN ON SATURDAYS IS AN IMPLAUSIBLE INTERPRETATION OF THE
 CONTRACT.
 
    THE AUTHORITY WILL GRANT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION
 AWARD WHERE IT APPEARS, BASED UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED
 IN THE PETITION, THAT THE EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD PRESENTS A GROUND
 SIMILAR TO THOSE UPON WHICH CHALLENGES TO ARBITRATION AWARDS ARE
 SUSTAINED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS.  FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR CASES WILL NOT DRAW ITS
 ESSENCE FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  UNITED STEELWORKERS
 OF AMERICA V. ENTERPRISE WHEEL AND CAR CORP., 363 U.S. 593(1960);
 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY,
 415 F.2D 403(5TH CIR. 1969).  THEREFORE, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY WILL GRANT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD ON
 THE GROUND THAT THE AWARD DOES NOT DRAW ITS ESSENCE FROM THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
 
    HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT FIND THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IN THIS
 CASE SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN ITS PETITION.
  THAT IS, THE UNION HAS PRESENTED NO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO
 DEMONSTRATE THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD "CAN (NOT) IN ANY RATIONAL WAY BE
 DERIVED FROM THE AGREEMENT," LUDWIG HONOLD MFG. CO. V. FLETCHER, 405
 F.2D 1123, 1128(3RD CIR. 1969);  OR IS "SO UNFOUNDED IN REASON AND FACT,
 SO UNCONNECTED WITH THE WORDING AND PURPOSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT AS TO 'MANIFEST AN INFIDELITY TO THE OBLIGATION OF THE
 ARBITRATOR,'" BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, SUPRA, AT 415;  OR THAT
 IT EVIDENCES A "MANIFEST DISREGARD OF THE AGREEMENT, "LUDWIG HONOLD MFG.
 CO., SUPRA, AT 1128;  OR THAT, ON ITS FACE, THE AWARD DOES NOT REPRESENT
 A "PLAUSIBLE -INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT," HOLLY SUGAR CORP. V.
 DISTILLERY, RECTIFYING, WINE & ALLIED WORKERS INT'L UNION, AFL-CIO, 412
 F.2D 899, 903(9TH CIR. 1969).  INSTEAD THE UNION APPEARS TO BE
 DISAGREEING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE
 PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT BEFORE HIM.  FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR
 CASES HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR
 REVIEWING ARBITRATION AWARDS.  "(T)HE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF THE
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS A QUESTION FOR THE ARBITRATOR.  IT IS
 THE ARBITRATOR'S CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS BARGAINED FOR;  AND SO FAR AS
 THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION CONCERNS CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT, THE
 COURTS HAVE NO DIFFERENT FROM HIS." UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA V.
 ENTERPRISE WHEEL AND CAR CORP., 363 U.S. 593, 599(1960).  THEREFORE, THE
 UNION'S THIRD EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ITS PETITION
 UNDER SECTION 2411.32 OF THE AMENDED RULES.
 
    IN ITS FOURTH EXCEPTION, THE UNION ARGUES THAT THE AWARD IS BASED ON
 NONFACTS.  IN THIS REGARD, THE UNION CITES AS "NONFACTS" SEVERAL
 STATEMENTS AND FINDINGS MADE BY THE ARBITRATOR AND DISAGREES WITH THOSE
 STATEMENTS AND FINDINGS.
 
    FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR CASES WILL SUSTAIN A CHALLENGE TO AN
 ARBITRATOR'S AWARD ON THE BASIS THAT THE AWARD IS BASED ON A NONFACT.
 THAT IS, FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR CASES WILL OVERTURN AN AWARD
 WHERE THE CENTRAL FACT UNDERLYING AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS CONCEDEDLY
 ERRONEOUS, AND IN EFFECT IS A GROSS MISTAKE OF FACT BUT FOR WHICH A
 DIFFERENT RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED.  ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF
 AMERICA V. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS,
 AFL-CIO LOCAL 272, 492 F.2D 1255(1ST CIR. 1974).  THEREFORE, THE FEDERAL
 LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WILL GRANT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN
 ARBITRATION AWARD ON THE GROUND THAT THE AWARD IS BASED ON A NONFACT.
 
    HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THIS GROUND THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT IN
 ELECTRONICS CORPORATION THE ARBITRATOR HAD BASED HIS AWARD OF
 REINSTATEMENT UPON THE "FACT" THAT THERE WAS NO PRETERMINATION
 SUSPENSION OF THE GRIEVANT.  IN FACT, THERE HAD BEEN SUCH A SUSPENSION.
 THE COURT HELD THAT "WHERE THE 'FACT' UNDERLYING AN ARBITRATOR'S
 DECISION IS CONCEDEDLY A NON-FACT AND WHERE THE PARTIES CANNOT FAIRLY BE
 CHARGED WITH THE MISAPPREHENSION, THE AWARD CANNOT STAND." THUS, IN
 ORDER TO SUPPORT A CHALLENGE TO AN ARBITRATION AWARD ON THE GROUND THAT
 THE AWARD IS BASED ON A NONFACT, IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE FACT IN
 QUESTION IS A MATTER WHICH IS OBJECTIVELY ASCERTAINABLE AND IS THE FACT
 UPON WHICH THE AWARD MISAPPREHENSION AND IT MUST BE READILY APPARENT
 FROM THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD THAT BUT FOR THE ARBITRATOR'S
 MISAPPREHENSION, THE ARBITRATOR WOULD HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT RESULT.
 
    IN THIS CASE, THE UNION'S EXCEPTION THAT THE AWARD IS BASED UPON A
 NONFACT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN ITS
 PETITION.  THUS THE UNION'S PETITION DOES NOT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT
 THE ALLEGED NONFACTS INVOLVED FACTS WHICH WERE OBJECTIVELY
 ASCERTAINABLE, THAT THEY WERE THE CENTRAL FACTS UNDERLYING THE AWARD,
 THAT THEY WERE CONCEDEDLY ERRONEOUS, AND THAT BUT FOR THE ARBITRATOR'S
 MISAPPREHENSION HE WOULD HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT RESULT.  INSTEAD, THE
 UNION IS MERELY DISAGREEING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT.
 FEDERAL COURTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR CASES HAVE HELD THAT THIS DOES NOT
 CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS.  AMALGAMATED MEAT
 CUTTERS & BUTCHERS WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, DISTRICT LOCAL NO. 540 V.
 NEUOFF BROS. PACKERS INC., 481 F.2D 817, 819(5TH CIR. 1973).  THEREFORE,
 THIS EXCEPTION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNION'S PETITION
 FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 2411.32 OF THE AMENDED RULES.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ARBITRATOR'S
 AWARD IS DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
 2411.32 OF THE AMENDED RULES FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE AUTHORITY OF A
 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 17, 1980.
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    /1/ ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATOR, ARTICLE XIII OF THE PARTIES'
 AGREEMENT STATES IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    SECTION 1.  BASIC TOUR OF DUTY
 
    THE NORMAL BASIC TOUR OF DUTY WILL CONSIST OF FIVE CONSECUTIVE
 EIGHT-HOUR DAYS, 0800 TO 1630 HOURS, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, - - - - - .
 A PERIOD OF SEVEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS BEGINNING AT 0001 HOURS ON SUNDAY
 ENDING AT 2400 HOURS THE FOLLOWING SATURDAY CONSTITUTES A NORMAL
 ADMINISTRATIVE WORK WEEK.
 
    SECTION 2.  CHANGES IN TOUR OF DUTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORK WEEK
 
    CHANGES IN THE PRESCRIBED BASIC REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY OR NORMAL
 ADMINISTRATIVE WORK WEEK FOR SPECIFIED INDIVIDUALS OR FOR SPECIAL GROUPS
 OF EMPLOYEES MAY BE APPROVED BY THE COMMANDER, MICOM OR THE DIRECTOR,
 USACC AGENCY-REDSTONE IN THOSE CASES WHERE A REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY OR
 NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE WORK WEEK WOULD SERIOUSLY HANDICAP THE
 PERFORMANCE
 OF A FUNCTION OR WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED COST.
 
    SECTION 3.  COVERAGE
 
    A.  TOURS OF DUTY WILL COVER A MINIMUM OF 40 HOURS PER ADMINISTRATIVE
 WORK WEEK FOR ALL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT FOR FIRE FIGHTERS.
 
    B.  UNLESS MISSION REQUIREMENTS DICTATE OTHERWISE, THE BASIC 40-HOUR
 WORK WEEK WILL BE SCHEDULED OVER FIVE DAYS, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, SO
 THAT THE TWO DAYS OUTSIDE THE BASIS WORK WEEK WILL BE CONSECUTIVE.  AS A
 MINIMUM, ONE REGULAR DAY OFF - PREFERABLY SUNDAY - WILL BE PROVIDED.
 
    SECTION 4.  EXCEPTIONS
 
    TOURS OF DUTY WILL BE ESTABLISHED OR CHANGED AT LEAST TWO WEEKS IN
 ADVANCE, ANNOUNCED IN WRITING, AND CONTINUED FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST
 TWO PAY PERIODS.  THE MICOM COMMAND OR THE DIRECTOR, USACC
 AGENCY-REDSTONE CAN MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REQUIREMENT WHEN UNUSUAL
 CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDE COMPLIANCE.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE 2-WEEKS ADVANCED
 NOTICE WILL NOT BE MADE, HOWEVER, WHEN THE CHANGE IN TOUR IS FOR THE
 SOLE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR CREATING THE NECESSITY FOR PAYMENT OF
 OVERTIME, NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OR HOLIDAY PAY.
 
    /2/ 5 U.S.C. 6103(B)(2) PROVIDES:
 
    SECTION 6103.  HOLIDAYS
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF STATUTES RELATING TO PAY AND LEAVE OF
 EMPLOYEES, WITH RESPECT TO A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY AND ANY OTHER DAY
 DECLARED TO BE A HOLIDAY BY FEDERAL STATUTE OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE
 FOLLOWING RULES APPLY"
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (2) INSTEAD OF A HOLIDAY THAT OCCURS ON A REGULAR WEEKLY NONWORKDAY
 OF AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE BASIC WORKWEEK IS OTHER THAN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY,
 EXCEPT THE REGULAR WEEKLY NONWORKDAY ADMINISTRATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE
 EMPLOYEE INSTEAD OF SUNDAY, THE WORKDAY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THAT REGULAR
 WEEKLY NONWORKDAY IS A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY FOR THE EMPLOYEE.
 
    /3/ 5 U.S.C. 5546(B) PROVIDES:
 
    SEC. 5546.  PAY FOR SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY WORK
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (B) AN EMPLOYEE WHO PERFORMS WORK ON A HOLIDAY DESIGNATED BY FEDERAL
 STATUTE, EXECUTIVE ORDER, OR WITH RESPECT TO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
 GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT OF
 COLUMBIA COUNCIL, IS ENTITLED TO PAY AT THE RATE OF HIS BASIC PAY, PLUS
 PREMIUM PAY AT A RATE EQUAL TO THE RATE OF HIS BASIC PAY, FOR THAT
 HOLIDAY WORK WHICH IS NOT --
 
    (1) IN EXCESS OF 8 HOURS;  OR
 
    (2) OVERTIME WORK AS DEFINED BY SECTION 5542(A) OF THIS TITLE.
 
    /4/ 5 U.S.C. 6101(A)(3) PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    (3) EXCEPT WHEN THE HEAD OF AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY, A MILITARY
 DEPARTMENT, OR OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DETERMINES
 THAT HIS ORGANIZATION WOULD BE SERIOUSLY HANDICAPPED IN CARRYING OUT ITS
 FUNCTIONS OR THAT COSTS WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED, HE SHALL
 PROVIDE, WITH RESPECT TO EACH EMPLOYEE IN HIS ORGANIZATION, THAT -
 
    (A) ASSIGNMENTS TO TOURS OF DUTY ARE SCHEDULED IN ADVANCE OVER
 PERIODS OF NOT LESS THAN 1 WEEK;
 
    (B) THE BASIC 40-HOUR WORKWEEK IS SCHEDULED ON 5 DAYS, MONDAY THROUGH
 FRIDAY WHEN POSSIBLE, AND THE 2 DAYS OUTSIDE THE BASIC WORKWEEK ARE
 CONSECUTIVE;
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (E) THE OCCURRENCE OF HOLIDAYS MAY NOT AFFECT THE DESIGNATION OF THE
 BASIC WORKWEEK . . . .