[ v31 p355 ]
31:0355(31)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
31 FLRA NO. 31 31 FLRA 355 23 FEB 1988 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3232 Union and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION II Agency Case No. 0-NG-1445 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute). It concerns the negotiability of a proposal which requires the Agency to grant administrative leave to cover certain commuting time for employees on detail. For the reasons which follow, we find that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it is inconsistent with Government-wide regulations. II. Background and Proposal The Agency decided to detail certain claims representatives from field offices in the Philadelphia Region to teleservice centers also in the Philadelphia Region. This detail was for the purpose of taking teleclaims and answering claimant's inquiries regarding Title II of the Social Security Act. During impact and implementation bargaining on the Agency's decision to detail employees, the parties agreed, among other things, that the employees would be detailed on a rotational basis among qualified volunteers using seniority as the basis for the detail. However, the Agency objected to the underlined portion of the following proposal: 10 - If the office to which an employee is detailed is further from the employee's residence than the original duty station, the employee will be granted administrative leave to cover the additional time required for the travel while on detail. Travel expenses will be paid while on detail, minus the normal expenses for getting to the original duty station. (only the underscored portion is in dispute.) III. Positions of the Parties The Agency argues that the requirement to grant administrative leave for a portion of an employee's commute to a temporary duty location conflicts with provisions in the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM). In addition, the Agency contends that the disputed language directly and excessively interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The Agency also asserts that the proposal is inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. 6101(b)(2) and 5 C.F.R. 610.123 because it requires that commuting time be during duty hours. The Union contends that the proposal is a negotiable procedure which is consistent with law and Government-wide regulations and is an appropriate arrangement for adversely affected employees. The Union alleges that the proposal is clearly within the Agency's duty to bargain since management retains broad discretion to grant administrative leave under applicable Government-wide regulations. The Union also claims that this proposal does not require administrative leave to be granted while employees are on detail. Rather, according to the Union, administrative leave could be scheduled at a later date. IV. Analysis and Conclusion The Union here is seeking "administrative leave" to cover the difference in commuting time between that spent by unit employees in traveling from their homes to their regular duty stations and that spent in commuting from their homes to their temporary duty stations while on detail. The Union explained that the Agency need not deduct the administrative leave from the employees' regular 8-hour workday. Rather, the Union asserts, ". . . the union's proposal in the instant case allows management complete discretion to assign workers for the full eight hours at their temporary duty station. The clear unambiguous language of the proposal merely requires that, in those situations where employees have to travel much longer distances than they do, to get to their assigned temporary duty stations, the agency will grant administrative leave to cover the additional time." Reply Brief at 5-6. The Union also explains that ". . . the leave is not necessarily taken on each day of the detail, but could be scheduled by management at a later date, subject to approval of the Supervisor." Reply Brief at 8. Administrative leave, or leave granted at the administrative discretion of agencies is covered by Federal Personnel Management (FPM) chapter 630, subchapter 11. The Authority previously has held that these FPM provisions are Government-wide within the meaning of section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 3804 and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Madison Region, 21 FLRA 870, 898-99 (1986) (Proposal 15). FPM 630, subchapter 11-1 defines administrative leave, or excused absence--the terms, in practice, are used interchangeably--as "an absence from duty administratively authorized without loss of pay and without charge to leave." The subchapter lists examples of circumstances in which an agency may, in its discretion grant administrative leave. Those examples include: blood donation, tardiness and brief absences, taking examinations, attending conferences or conventions, and representing employees organizations. None of those examples, we note, are similar to the situation or which the Union here seeks administrative leave. More significantly, based on the definition contained in FPM 630, subchapter 11-5, we find that what the Union is seeking through this proposal is not "administrative leave." Administrative leave may be granted when an employee, for some appropriate reason, is absent from work during a regularly scheduled tour of duty. The grant of administrative leave prevents the loss of pay or leave which would otherwise result from the absence. In the circumstances of this proposal, as the Union's statement quoted above clearly indicates, management retains authority "to assign workers for the full eight hours at their temporary duty station." Consequently, the proposal does not address a situation in which a grant of administrative leave would be appropriate. The proposal is not intended to redress an employee's loss of leave or pay resulting from an inability to be present for a full, normal tour of duty. We find that what the union is seeking here, although written in terms of "administrative leave", is compensation for the additional commuting time in the form of compensatory leave. In reaching this conclusion, we note the Union's statement, quoted above, that the leave "could be scheduled by management at a later date", a characteristic of compensatory leave, which is leave in lieu of overtime pay. See 5 U.S.C. 5543(a). We find further support for this conclusion in the Union's statement that the Agency retains authority to assign detailed employees to a normal 8-hour tour at the temporary duty site. Thus, the leave sought would cover a period beyond the regular duty tour, that is, overtime. With some exceptions not relevant to this case, commuting time, that is, "home to work" travel, is not an activity which constitutes hours of work and, therefore, is not compensable. 5 C.F.R. 551.422(b). The cited section of the Code of Federal Regulations is issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under authority of 29 U.S.C. 204(f), which requires OPM to administer provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) "with respect to any individual employed by the United States", with some limited exceptions. The Union does not allege that unit employees are excluded from FLSA coverage and the record indicates that the employees are covered. Therefore, we conclude that the 5 C.F.R. 551.422(b) is a Government-wide regulation applicable to the disputed proposal. See National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 6 and Internal Revenue Service. New Orleans District, 3 FLRA 748, 751-55 (1980). The regulations also provide that if an employee travels directly from home to a temporary duty location outside the limits of his or her official duty station, "the time that the employee would have spent in normal home to work travel shall be deducted from hours of work(.)" Id. "Official duty station" is not defined as a specific location, but rather is "the employee's designated post of duty, the limits of which will be the corporate limits of the city or town in which the office or employee is stationed." Federal Travel Regulations, Paragraph 1-1.3c(l). See also Federal Personnel Manual Supplement 990-2, Book 550, subchapter S1-3. The Federal Travel Regulations have been held by the Authority to be "Government-wide" within the meaning of section 7117(a)(1). American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 3483 and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, New York District Office, 13 FLRA 446 (1983) (Proposal 1). The Union makes no claim that the teleservice centers to which employees will be detailed are outside the corporate limits of the cities or towns in which their field offices are located. Thus, we conclude that the exception in 5 C.F.R. 551.422(b), which would permit employees to be compensated for the additional time required to commute to the teleservice centers, is not applicable to this proposal. Accordingly, because it seeks compensation, in the form of compensatory time off, for increased commuting time--compensation not authorized by applicable Government-wide regulations--the proposal is nonnegotiable under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. Since we have found this proposal nonnegotiable because it is inconsistent with Government-wide regulations, we need not reach the question of whether the proposal constitutes a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) or an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3). These sections apply only when an agency exercises the management rights set out elsewhere in section 7106. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1546 and Department of the Army, Sharpe Army Depot, Lathrop, California, 25 FLRA 958 (1987). V. Order The petition for review is dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C. February 23, 1988 Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman Jean McKee, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY