United States of America

    The Employer’s mission is to provide loans, at reasonable rates and terms, to rural residents and communities unable to obtain credit from commercial resources. There are approximately 72 employees in the bargaining unit who work in loan processing, customer service, and clerical positions, at grades ranging from GS-3 through GS-11. The parties bargained over an "interim" agreement after the Union was certified as the exclusive representative of unit employees. The agreement addresses grievances, facilities, dues withholding, official time, and travel and per diem expenses. According to previously agreed upon wording, if a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement has not been completed by December 31, 2000, either party may reopen the "interim" agreement.

The proposal recognizes that RD travel funds for administering mission-related programs are tight due to the decrease in staffing levels (cuts of 28 percent) while the number of programs administered continues to rise (increases of 69 percent). For future years, by not specifying an amount, the Director of the Oklahoma RD could more easily adjust travel spending levels to make them consistent with overall travel appropriations. Additionally, to keep costs to a minimum, the practice of another union representing employees in the New York RD of using General Services Administration (GSA) cars, and personally-owned vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement when GSA cars are not available for representational travel, is reflected in the proposal. All things considered, it is important for the Union to "accept fiscal responsibility for those actions which it initiates," such as playing a voluntary role in third-party actions and participation in administrative proceedings other than those before the Panel and the Authority. This is especially true where, as here, the Director of Oklahoma RD "is an allottee under the Anti-Deficiency Act" who is "held accountable for any expenditures over and above the fixed funds received from the national office."

2.  The Union’s Position

The Union proposes the following wording:

The Union will pay travel and per diem expenses when union representatives participate in union sponsored training (see paragraph 7 below).⁽¹⁾ The Agency will pay reasonable travel and per diem expenses for all other representational purposes.

The proposal is comparable to how some other RD and Farm Service Agency (FSA) employers (Oklahoma FSA, Kansas RD, Arkansas RD and FSA, and Texas RD and FSA), and unions representing similarly-situated bargaining units, have dealt with the issue. Thus, it is a well-established practice for employers to pay for reasonable travel and per diem expenses to enable bargaining-unit employees to participate in protected activities. The Employer’s $6,000 proposed cap is based on the approximate actual annual cost of reimbursing the travel and per diem expenses of the Oklahoma FSA bargaining unit during the past 3 years. The Union president was able to get the Deputy Undersecretary for RD to commit to this amount for FY 2000 as a potential resolution of the dispute. Apportioning a low share of travel and per diem expenses to the Union is fair and realistic, given that it represents a relatively new, small bargaining unit which has few dues-paying members. The 72 bargaining-unit employees are spread among 16 different offices, making travel a necessity. Since Federal unions are barred from having "union shops," it is appropriate for the Employer to help pay costs of representing non-dues-paying members. Finally, because of the overall size of the budget appropriation for RD in FY 2000 ($533 million), inability to pay is not a valid justification for its proposing to limit travel and per diem funding.

    Having carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments presented, we shall order that the impasse be resolved on the basis of a compromise solution. Under its terms, the Employer would cover up to $6,000 of the Union’s travel and per diem expenses related to representational activities in FY 2000, and up to $6,000 in FY 2001. Within Oklahoma, travel would be by GSA vehicle when available, or by reimbursement of mileage expenses when a POV is used. In our view, the compromise provides a better resolution to the dispute than proposed by either party. By limiting the duration of such payments to the end of FY 2001, the parties have an incentive to expedite their negotiations over a comprehensive agreement. Regarding the $6,000 cap, this is an amount the Employer proposed and that the parties view as reasonable. In addition, requiring the use of a GSA vehicle, when available, or reimbursement of POV mileage, is prudent and appears to be consistent with similar practices in other USDA offices. Finally, our approach appropriately places the responsibility for determining which representational activities are eligible for travel and per diem payments on the parties.