Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

15:0459(95)AR - Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson AFB and AFGE Local 1138 -- 1984 FLRAdec AR

[ v15 p459 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 15 FLRA No. 95
                                            Case No. O-AR-365
    This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
 Arbitrator Jonas B. Katz filed by the Department of the Air Force (the
 Agency) under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and
    The dispute in this matter concerns the grievant's claim for
 compensatory time for travel outside his normal duty hours.  The claim
 arose when the grievant was required to travel on the weekend for a
 temporary duty assignment in Korea.  The issue before the Arbitrator was
 whether the Activity violated the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement when it denied the grievant's claim.
    The Arbitrator agreed with the Activity's contention that under 5
 U.S.C. 5542 and 5543, time spent in a travel status away from one's duty
 station does not constitute hours of employment for which overtime or
 compensatory time may be granted unless the travel results from an event
 which could not be scheduled or controlled administratively.  He also
 agreed that in this case the grievant's travel was administratively
 controllable.  However, the Arbitrator ruled that 5 U.S.C. 5542 and 5543
 were not dispositive because the parties' agreement required that the
 Activity schedule travel during the basic work week if "administratively
 controllable" or unless "mission requirements dictate otherwise." He
 concluded that since the grievant's travel was administratively
 controllable and there was no showing of a mission requirement that the
 travel be scheduled outside normal duty hours, the Activity violated the
 agreement by scheduling the travel on the weekend.  The Arbitrator
 therefore awarded the grievant 24 hours compensatory time.
    In its exceptions, the Agency contends that the award is contrary to
 5 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2).  The Authority agrees.  The legal basis for
 granting an employee compensatory time arises under 5 U.S.C. 5543 and,
 as previously indicated by the Authority, such time can only be awarded
 for compensable "hours of employment" under 5 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2).  Social
 Security Administration, Denver, Colorado and American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 1802, AFL-CIO, 8 FLRA 89 (1982).  Under 5
 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2)(B)(iv), travel time is not compensable hours of
 employment unless the event which necessitated the travel is one which
 could not be scheduled or controlled administratively.  U.S. Department
 of Labor and National Council of Field Labor Locals, American Federation
 of Government Employees, 10 FLRA 491 (1982).
    In this case, as acknowledged by the Arbitrator, the grievant's
 travel was scheduled and controlled administratively by the Activity.
 Consequently, the grievant's travel time did not constitute compensable
 hours of employment under section 5542(b)(2) for which overtime pay or
 compensatory time could be granted.  /1/ Therefore, while the Arbitrator
 had considerable latitude in fashioning a remedy for the Activity's
 violation of the parties' agreement, his award of 24 hours of
 compensatory time is contrary to 5 U.S.C. 5542(b)(2).
    Accordingly, the award is hereby set aside.
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 9, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
    /1/ Section 5542(b)(2) governs this case because it is apparent from
 the record that the grievant is an employee exempt from coverage under
 the Fair Labor Standards Act.