DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, National Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor.
Nos. 05-76031, 05-76391
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2007. Filed April 3, 2008.
521 F.3d 1148
Although Governor Davis‘s review of Miller‘s parole grant, based on his erroneous reading of
The district court‘s dismissal of Miller‘s claims as to Governor Davis is
AFFIRMED.
David M. Smith, William R. Tobey, Esq., David M. Shewchuk, Esq., and James F. Blandford, Esq., Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, DC, for the respondent-petitioner.
Barbara A. Atkin, Esq., Julie M. Wilson, Esq., Gregory O‘Duden, Esq., National Treasury Employees Union, Washington, DC, for the intervenor.
COWEN, Circuit Judge:
The Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“), petitions this court to review an August 10, 2005, order by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA“). The FLRA, along with the intervenor, the National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU“), has cross-petitioned this court to enforce the FLRA‘s order. For the following reasons, we will deny the IRS‘s petition for review and grant the FLRA‘s cross-petition for enforcement.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts underlying this case are not in dispute. In 1998, the IRS temporarily assigned revenue officers and revenue agents from its Tacoma, Everett, and Bellevue, Washington offices to work at the Seattle district headquarters. These employees assisted with walk-in and telephone customers.
At all times relevant to this case, the IRS and the NTEU operated under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA“). Article 29, Section 3E of the CBA stated that, “[w]hen an employee travels from his/her residence to a point of destination within his/her official duty station, he/she should not be required to leave home any earlier or arrive home any later than he/she does when he/she travels to and from his/her usual assigned place of business.” The Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, and Se-
The NTEU filed a grievance asserting that the IRS failed to compensate the transferred employees for their increased commute time in violation of Article 29, Section 3E of the CBA. In July 2000, the arbitrator found that Article 29, Section 3E applied to the affected employees. The arbitrator also determined that the provision would allow for compensation for the extra commute time. Furthermore, the arbitrator found that the CBA provision constituted an “express provision,” which permitted compensation to these federal employees under the Portal-to-Portal Act,
The IRS filed exceptions to the arbitrator‘s award with the FLRA. Before the FLRA, the IRS raised several arguments: (1) the arbitrator‘s award was contrary to law because
After the FLRA denied the exceptions, the IRS refused to implement the arbitrator‘s award. As a result, the NTEU filed an unfair labor practice charge. The NTEU asserted that the IRS failed to comply with the arbitrator‘s award as required by
On remand, the IRS did not dispute that it failed to implement the arbitrator‘s award. However, it argued that it did not
The FLRA considered the sovereign immunity argument on the merits after noting that the issue could be raised at any time. The FLRA determined that
II. APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court has appellate jurisdiction over the FLRA‘s order pursuant to
III. DISCUSSION
The issue presented in this case is whether the FLRA‘s award of compensation to those affected employees was in error because it violated the United States’ sovereign immunity. The parties dispute whether the United States has waived sovereign immunity under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The IRS asserts that the Portal-to-Portal Act does not expressly waive sovereign immunity. The FLRA and the NTEU counter by arguing that the Portal-to-Portal Act must be read as a complement to the FLSA under these circumstances.
A. Sovereign Immunity, the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act
We will consider the issue of sovereign immunity on the merits because it can be raised at any time by the government, as it goes to a court‘s jurisdiction. See Settles v. United States Parole Comm‘n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1105 (D.C.Cir.2005) (citing Brown v. Sec‘y of Army, 78 F.3d 645, 648 (D.C.Cir.1996)). Indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted, “[i]t is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the exis-
The waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in the statutory text and will not be implied. See Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). Furthermore, “a waiver of the Government‘s sovereign immunity will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” Id. (citing United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531 (1995); Library of Cong. v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986); Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 161 (1981)). Additionally, “[a] statute‘s legislative history cannot supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory text; ‘the “unequivocal expression” of elimination of sovereign immunity that we insist upon is an expression in statutory text.‘” Id. (quoting United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 37 (1992)).
The FLSA was enacted in 1938, and, among other things, granted covered employees statutory rights to overtime compensation. See
[w]alking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities are excluded from FLSA‘s protections by the Portal-to-Portal Act; employers need not pay employees overtime ... for such activity.
Adams v. United States, 471 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 866, 169 L.Ed.2d 723 (2008).
However, the Portal-to-Portal Act carved out two exceptions, which do not relieve an employer from paying overtime; specifically:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section which relieve an employer from liability and punishment with respect to any activity, the employer shall not be so relieved if such activity is compensable by either—
(1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time
of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer; or
(2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer.
In 1974, Congress amended the FLSA by expanding the definition of “employee,” and the statute states that:
In the case of an individual employed by a public agency, such term means— any individual employed by the Government of the United States—
(i) as a civilian in the military departments (as defined in section 102 of Title 5),
(ii) in any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of such title),
(iii) in any unit of the judicial branch of the Government which has positions in the competitive service,
(iv) in a nonappropriated fund instrumentality under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces,
(v) in the Library of Congress, or
(vi) the Government Printing Office[.]
No party disputes that the FLSA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity. Instead, the IRS argues that the FLSA is not applicable in this case and that the Portal-to-Portal Act does not expressly waive sovereign immunity. For the following reasons, we disagree.
In Lane, the Supreme Court analyzed whether the United States waived sovereign immunity under
As previously noted, this case was brought on behalf of affected employees seeking overtime pursuant to Article 29, Section 3E of the CBA. Indeed, the arbitrator recognized that the IRS violated the FLSA in not complying with the CBA provision. Under these circumstances, the Portal-to-Portal Act‘s exception under
This is a case that concerns overtime. The FLSA has always governed overtime, and although NTEU supports its claim for overtime compensation by invoking the Portal-to-Portal Act, we nevertheless look to the FLSA‘s remedies provision to determine whether the government waived its sovereign immunity. See Adams v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 602, 609 (2001) (noting that in the case of overtime pay under the FLSA, the statute itself provides the remedy and that the FLSA‘s remedial provision is a source of back pay). Because the Portal-to-Portal Act‘s remedies for overtime are found within the FLSA, and no party disputes that the FLSA waives sovereign immunity, the FLRA properly determined that the United States waived sovereign immunity.4
B. The IRS‘s alternative arguments
In its brief, the IRS makes several additional arguments, each of which is unpersuasive.
i. Expressness of the CBA versus expressness of the statutory
First, the IRS argues that the FLRA misconstrued the law of sovereign immunity by basing the waiver on language within the CBA, as opposed to the statutory text. As previously noted, only if the statutory text is explicit can the United States’ sovereign immunity be deemed waived. See Lane, 518 U.S. at 192. The mere fact that the IRS and the NTEU came to an agreement in the CBA regarding the compensation of affected employees is plainly insufficient to show a waiver of sovereign immunity. However, in this case, the FLRA did not rely on the CBA in determining that there was a waiver of sovereign immunity. Initially, the arbitrator found that the IRS violated the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The FLRA was clear that it relied on the Portal-to-Portal Act in determining that sovereign immunity had been waived. Indeed, it specifically stated that
ii. Air Force and NTEU
Next, the IRS asserts that the FLRA‘s order to pay compensation to affected employees is in conflict with Air Force, 952 F.2d 446, and our decision in NTEU, 418 F.3d 1068. For the following reasons, those two cases are clearly distinguishable.
In Air Force, the Air Force petitioned for review of an FLRA order requiring it to engage in collective bargaining over a proposal advanced by the union. 952 F.2d at 447. The union proposal called for overtime compensation for the time employees were delayed in leaving the worksite due to security measures. See id. The D.C. Circuit noted that the FSLMRS,
Under the FSLMRS, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM“) is charged with the authority to issue regulations. See id. at 448. The D.C. Circuit ultimately held that a government-wide regulation did not allow compensation for time spent in concluding activities that were not clearly related to principal work activities. See id. at 453. Thus, the court found that the union proposal was non-negotiable. In so concluding, the D.C. Circuit expressed no opinion on whether the regulation was in conflict with
Subsequent to Air Force, this Court decided NTEU. In NTEU, we were also presented with a negotiability appeal. In fact, in that case, the NTEU wanted to include an identical provision to Article 29, Section 3E in its proposed new CBA with the IRS. See 418 F.3d at 1069. The IRS approved the provision, but the Secretary of Treasury disapproved of the language pursuant to his duty to review the agreement under
Unlike both Air Force and NTEU, this is not a negotiability appeal. Indeed, both of those cases stood for the proposition that the federal government can—through regulation—direct its agencies not to engage in negotiation on such issues. See Air Force, 952 F.2d at 451 (stating that “the FSLMRS, governs collective bargaining between federal employees and government agencies, and
iii. The Portal-to-Portal Act and Federal Employees
Next, the IRS asserts that the Portal-to-Portal Act does not apply to fed-
iv. The Unfair Labor Practice decision did not lack a reasoned basis
Finally, the IRS argues that the FLRA‘s February 10, 2005, order lacked a reasoned basis because it was inconsistent with our decision in NTEU. As previously stated, NTEU and our holding today do not conflict. Furthermore, this argument by the IRS constitutes a collateral attack on the initial FLRA order, which upheld the arbitrator‘s award. Our review in this case is limited to only considering whether an unfair labor practice was committed by the IRS‘s failure to implement the arbitrator‘s award. See United States Marshals Serv. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 778 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1985). Here, the IRS‘s continuous refusal to abide by the FLRA‘s initial order enforcing the final arbitration award constituted an unfair labor practice. See id.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Portal-to-Portal Act exception for compensation for travel time must be read in conjunction with the FLSA under these circumstances. The United States’ sovereign immunity was waived because the FLSA expressly waives sovereign immunity. The IRS‘s petition for review is denied and the FLRA‘s petition for enforcement of its February 10, 2005, order is granted.
PETITION DENIED in No. 05-76031;
PETITION GRANTED in No. 05-76391;
Order of the FLRA ENFORCED.
Notes
An employee who travels from home before the regular workday begins and returns home at the end of the workday is engaged in normal “home to work” travel; such travel is not hours of work. When an employee travels directly from home to a temporary duty location outside the limits of his or her official duty station, the time the employee would have spent in normal home to work travel shall be deducted from hours of work as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.... An action to recover the liability prescribed in either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.
proper notice of the pay-lag policy change was the thing to which the commissary employees were entitled. The interest charges for which the employees seek compensation are sums they lost only as a consequence of the Army‘s failure to give them the notice they were due. Accordingly, any compensation for such interest is properly characterized as “money damages.”
Id. at 276. Ultimately, the court reviewed