21:0501(66)AR - United Power Trades Council and Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Div. -- 1986 FLRAdec AR
[ v21 p501 ]
21:0501(66)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
21 FLRA No. 66
UNITED POWER TRADES COUNCIL
Union
and
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
Activity
Case No. 0-AR-960
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Gary L. Axon filed on behalf of the Activity by the
Department of the Army (the Agency) under section 7122(a) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations.
II. BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
The grievance arose when the Activity discontinued payment of night
differential pay for certain power plant operational personnel who
worked night shift hours. The Activity based its action on the 1983
Pacific Northwest Regional Power Rate Schedule issued by the Department
of Defense Wage Fixing Authority.
The wages of the employees involved are governed by the Prevailing
Rate Systems Act of 1972, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. Sections
5341-5349 and which is commonly referred to as the prevailing rate
statute. /1/ Section 5341 provides that the general policy of the
prevailing rate statute is that the rates of pay of prevailing rate
employees are to be fixed and adjusted from time to time, as nearly as
is consistent with the public interest, in accordance with the
prevailing rates paid for comparable work in the local area by private
sector employers. Under section 5343, which establishes the basic
mechanism to carry out this policy, the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) is responsible for defining geographical wage areas and for
designating a lead agency for each area. 5 U.S.C. Section 5343(a)(1)
and (2). Lead agencies are responsible for conducting wage surveys,
analyzing wage survey data, and developing and establishing appropriate
wage schedules and rates for prevailing rate employees. 5 U.S.C.
Section 5343(a)(3).
The head of each agency having prevailing rate employees in a wage
area is required to apply to those employees the wage schedules and
rates established by the lead agency. 5 U.S.C. Section 5343(a)(4). OPM
has implemented the prevailing rate statute in 5 CFR part 532, Federal
Personnel Manual (FPM) chapter 532 and FPM Supplement 532-1. Section
5343(f) of the prevailing rate statute and FPM Supp. 532-1 provide for
the payment of a night differential for prevailing rate employees.
With regard to the prevailing rate employees involved in this case,
OPM designated the Department of Defense Wage Fixing Authority (DOD WFA)
as the lead agency to conduct wage surveys among private electric
utilities in the area in which the Activity operated hydroelectric power
producing plants and to develop and establish the appropriate wage
schedules. DOD WFA's Pacific Northwest Power Rate Schedule established
the rates of pay for the Activity's prevailing rate employees. In
addition, the employees were authorized night shift differential pay as
provided for in the prevailing rate statute and FPM Supp. 532-1.
Moreover, the parties' collective bargaining agreement provided that
night differential would be paid in accordance with FPM Supp. 532-1.
In 1982, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 was signed into
law (Pub. L. No. 97-257, 96 Stat. 932). That Act provides, in part:
Without regard to any other provision of law limiting the
amounts payable to prevailing wage rate employees, United States
Army Corps of Engineers employees paid from Corps of Engineers
Special Power Rate Schedules shall be paid, beginning the
effective date of each annual wage survey in the region after the
date of enactment of this Act, wages as determined by the
Department of Defense Wage Fixing Authority to be consistent with
wages of the Department of Energy and the Department of the
Interior employees performing similar work in the corresponding
area . . . .
The legislative history of the provision indicates that Congress was
concerned that Corps of Engineers power plant employees were being paid
less than employees of the Departments of Interior and Energy in the
same geographic area who were doing comparable jobs, and that Congress
intended to correct that inequity. Thus, the Senate Committee Report on
the Act provides:
The Committee has been informed that certain Corps of Engineers
power plant operational personnel are paid less than personnel of
the agencies doing comparable jobs in nearby locations. The
Committee believes that all Federal employees should receive
comparable compensation for performing comparable work and has
concurred with the House provision in the bill that would remove
the inequity.
S. Rep. No. 97-516, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 80 (1982).
In 1983, DOD WFA issued the first Pacific Northwest Regional Power
Rate Schedule pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, following
wage surveys at Interior and Energy facilities in the region. Those
surveys revealed that while Interior and Energy employees in comparable
positions were compensated at higher rates than Corps of Engineers
employees in some respects, such as overtime pay, they were not paid
shift differential. Accordingly, DOD WFA's 1983 Rate Schedule and
subsequent amendments provided for pay rates for Corps of Engineer
employees consistent with the rates for Interior and Energy employees
and specifically excluded shift differential pay. The Activity
implemented the Rate Schedule and discontinued payment of shift
differential to its prevailing rate employees. The Union then filed the
grievance in this case alleging that the Activity had thereby violated
the parties' agreement.
The Arbitrator determined that the parties' agreement expressly
provided for payment of shift differential and that nothing in the
Supplemental Appropriations Act required covered employees to forego the
benefits of the agreement. Accordingly, as his award, the Arbitrator
concluded that the Activity had violated the parties' agreement by
discontinuing payment of shift differential. As a remedy, the
Arbitrator awarded the affected employees backpay from the date the
shift differential was discontinued and directed the Activity to
reinstitute shift differential pay until the execution of a new
agreement.
III. EXCEPTION
As one of its exceptions, the Agency contends the Arbitrator's award
is contrary to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 clearly and unequivocally
requires that prevailing rate employees of the Corps of Engineers paid
from the Corps of Engineers Special Power Rate Schedules shall be paid
wages as determined by the DOD WFA to be consistent with wages of
employees of the Departments of the Interior and Energy who perform
similar work in the corresponding area. Further, the DOD WFA, the
agency exclusively authorized to establish the appropriate wage
schedules and rates for Corps of Engineers prevailing rate employees,
determined that Interior and Energy employees in comparable positions
were not paid a shift differential. Therefore, in view of the clear
language of the Supplemental Appropriations Act and the intent of
Congress as expressed in the related legislative history, shift
differential could no longer be paid to the affected Corps of Engineers
employees after DOD WFA made its determination. The Authority finds
that because the Supplemental Appropriations Act effectively prohibited
payment of a shift differential to the Activity's prevailing rate
employees after DOD WFA's determination, the Arbitrator was precluded
from directing otherwise. Consequently, the Authority concludes that
the Arbitrator's award is deficient as contrary to the Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1982.
V. DECISION
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Arbitrator's award is set
aside. /2/
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 24, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
FOOTNOTES
(1) Watervliet Arsenal, Department of the Army and National
Association of Government Employees, Local R2-98, 10 FLRA 670 (1982).
(2) In view of this decision, the Authority has determined that it is
not necessary to address the Agency's other exception to the award.