977 F.3d 10
D.C. Cir.2020Background
- The Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) and the Antilles Consolidated Education Association (union) negotiated a successor collective-bargaining agreement for teachers; they deadlocked on workday, compensation (Article 26 and Appendix F), and other provisions.
- Article 19, §1(b) from the prior contract provided an eighth hour for preparation/professional tasks that could be done “at or away from the work site,” while reserving the agency the right to require that hour be performed at school on a “particular workday.”
- The union sought assistance from the Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel); a factfinder recommended (and the Panel ordered) adoption of a full successor agreement including the disputed workday language and compensation terms, plus provisions the parties had tentatively agreed to.
- The agency refused to implement the Panel’s order; the union filed unfair-labor-practice charges with the FLRA. The FLRA largely ruled for the agency: it held the Panel lacked authority to impose the workday language and the tentatively agreed provisions, found the workday language infringed the agency’s assignment rights, and directed the parties to resume bargaining on workday and compensation issues.
- The union petitioned this court to review the FLRA order. The D.C. Circuit upheld most of the FLRA’s rulings but set aside the FLRA’s conclusion that §1(b) was nonnegotiable (finding that conclusion arbitrary and capricious) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (FLRA/Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Impasses Panel had authority to decide negotiability of the disputed workday provisions | Panel could resolve negotiability here (similar provisions had been found negotiable elsewhere) | Only FLRA may resolve negotiability questions (Panel lacks authority except where the proposal is "substantively identical" to an FLRA decision) | Panel lacked authority to decide negotiability of these workday provisions; FLRA decision affirmed |
| Whether Article 19, §1(b) (the eighth-hour provision) is nonnegotiable because it infringes the agency's right to assign work | §1(b) is negotiable; it does not prevent the agency from controlling when work is performed | §1(b) grants teachers discretion over when to perform the eighth hour and thus interferes with the agency’s assignment rights; nonnegotiable | FLRA’s conclusion that §1(b) was nonnegotiable was set aside as arbitrary and capricious; court remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether compensation provisions adopted by the Panel must be implemented even if the workday provisions are invalid | Panel-ordered compensation should be implemented | Compensation and duty hours are inseparable; if workday language is invalid, compensation terms should be reopened | Court upheld FLRA’s remedy to reopen bargaining on compensation because pay and duty hours are linked |
| Whether the Panel could impose provisions the parties had tentatively agreed to before seeking Panel assistance | Panel could impose the entire successor agreement, including tentatively agreed provisions | Panel lacked jurisdiction to impose provisions outside the specific impasse presented to it | Court upheld FLRA’s ruling that the Panel exceeded its authority by ordering adoption of tentatively agreed provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Stewart Schs. v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641 (1990) (DoD discretion over teachers' pay makes compensation negotiable in the federal-sector context)
- Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Emps. v. FLRA, 789 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Panel may impose contract terms as a remedy to resolve an impasse)
- Am. Fed'n Gov't Emps. v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 850 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (issues of negotiability are for the FLRA, not the Panel)
- Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Emps., Local R7-23 v. FLRA, 893 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (deferential review of FLRA determinations on Panel authority)
- Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union v. FLRA, 848 F.2d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (deference to FLRA on scope of bargaining and remedies)
- FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) (agency actions are arbitrary and capricious if not reasonably explained)
- Council of Prison Locs. v. Brewer, 735 F.2d 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (review of Panel action proceeds via FLRA unfair-practice proceedings)