Click here to view the decision.
56 FLRA No. 6
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia and NFFE, Local 1309, Case No. WA-CA-30451 (Decided February 28, 2000)
This unfair labor practice was remanded to the Authority from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In its original decision, the Authority concluded that the Respondent, the U.S. Geological Survey, violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by refusing to bargain over a proposal requiring midterm bargaining that was substantially identical to proposals previously found negotiable by the Authority. The Authority's decision was based in part on its precedent that under the Statute an agency is obligated, with some exceptions, to bargain over union-initiated midterm proposals. The Authority's decision was reversed in 132 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1997). Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.
The Supreme Court found that the Statute is ambiguous with respect to the question of whether agencies are required to bargain over union-initiated midterm proposals and that Congress delegated to the Authority the power to determine "whether, when, where, and what sort of midterm bargaining is required." The Court remanded the case so that the Authority would have the opportunity to consider the matter of midterm bargaining, "aware that the Statute permits, but does not compel" the Authority's previous conclusions.
Consistent with the Supreme Court's remand instructions, the Authority reconsidered the question of union-initiated midterm bargaining, concluding that an agency was required to bargain over a proposal obligating the agency to engage in midterm bargaining over matters not contained in or covered by the term agreement. The Authority held that such proposals were within the duty to bargain because they furthered the purpose··___·· of the Statute and thus restate a statutory obligation; and because they were not inconsistent with law, rule, or regulation. Therefore, the Authority concluded that the agency committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.