X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion. Randolph, Circuit Judge: Let us begin very simply. The petitioner has raised several objections to a decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. No one made these objections, or any arguments in support of them, during the administrative proceedings. The FLRA’s opinion does not address them. Congress, in 5 U.S.C. s 7123(c), decreed: “No objection that has not been urged before the Authority … shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge the objection is excused because of extraordinary circumstances.” The particular “failure or neglect” encoun- tered here cannot be excused. There are no extraordinary circumstances. And so the petition for judicial review must be denied. See EEOC v. FLRA, 476 U.S. 19, 22-23 (1986); NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, 344 U.S. 344, 350 (1953). Now for the details. Petitioner is the Georgia State Chap- ter of the Association of Civilian Technicians, a federal labor union. It has a collective bargaining agreement with the Office of the Adjutant General, Georgia Department of De- fense. Section 5.2a(3) of the agreement gives the union, or rather its members, a total of 2200 hours of paid administra- tive leave [FOOTNOTE 1] — otherwise known as “official time”–for certain specified purposes, one of which is to visit elected representa- tives regarding legislation that would affect union members. [FOOTNOTE 2] In August 1995, the union requested hours of official time for eleven of its representatives to meet with Members of Con- gress to discuss “matters of interest to the Union and the employees it represents.” See Georgia State Chapter Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, 54 F.L.R.A. 654, 656 (1998). The Georgia Office of the Adjutant General refused on the basis that the contractual leave provision, to the extent it concerned lobbying of Congress, was unlawful and hence unenforceable. See id. After management reiterated its position, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge. The FLRA’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that this arm of the Defense Department, by repudiating a provision of the collective bar- gaining agreement, had violated s 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act. [FOOTNOTE 3] See Georgia State Chapter, 54 F.L.R.A. at 654. During the ensu- ing administrative proceedings, the General Counsel contend- ed that s 7102 grants employees the right to act in a repre- sentational capacity and, in that capacity, to present the views of their union to Congress. [FOOTNOTE 4] See Georgia State Chapter, 54 F.L.R.A. at 660. The Act also requires that union represen- tatives “be granted official time” in an amount set by con- tract. See 5 U.S.C. s 7131(d). In an anticipatory defense, the General Counsel maintained that a criminal provision–18 U.S.C. s 1913–did not render the administrative leave provi- sion illegal. The criminal provision forbids using appropriat- ed funds “directly or indirectly to pay for any … device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress … [regarding] any legislation or appropriation,” “in the absence of express authorization by Congress.” 18 U.S.C. s 1913. Section 7102(1), the General Counsel con- tended, is such an express congressional authorization. See Georgia State Chapter, 54 F.L.R.A. at 660. Although agreeing with the General Counsel about 18 U.S.C. s 1913, the FLRA held the disputed portion of the contractual leave provision unenforceable on another ground. Paying wages to union representatives for their lobbying of Congress, the FLRA ruled, contradicted s 8015 of the De- partment of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996. See Georgia State Chapter, 54 F.L.R.A. at 665-66; see also Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-61, s 8015, 109 Stat. 636, 654 (1995). Section 8015 provides that “[n]one of the funds made available by this Act shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before the Congress.” See Pub. L. No. 104-61, s 8015, 109 Stat. 654. In so ruling, the FLRA adopted the contention of the Defense Department in the brief it filed with the agency. The union tells us that the FLRA erred, because the Appropriations Act could not repeal the provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act by impli- cation; because the FLRA “overlooked its obligation to rec- oncile the statutes”; because the FLRA’s interpretation rais- es a question under the First Amendment to the Constitution; and because the labor statute is more specific than the Appropriations Act. We can say with confidence that none of these objections, none of these arguments, was ever urged until the case arrived in this court. As we wrote in the opening paragraph, that failure and neglect precludes us from passing on the union’s contentions. We do not have to deal with any possible distinctions between, on the one hand, preserving an “objection”–the term used in 5 U.S.C. s 7123(c), and in its NLRB counterpart, 29 U.S.C. s 160(e)– and, on the other hand, preserving an “issue,” or a “claim,” or an “argument.” Compare Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, 344 U.S. at 350; Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991); Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1992); Parsippany Hotel Management Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413, 417-18 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The fact of the matter is that nothing was put before the FLRA to counter the De- fense Department’s contention that the Appropriations Act rendered the contractual provision unenforceable. It is not enough that the FLRA’s General Counsel brought to the agency’s attention the maxim that a specific statute prevails over a general one. This was said to explain why the criminal provision (18 U.S.C. s 1913) did not override the provisions in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act. See Georgia State Chapter, 54 F.L.R.A. at 660. Whether the maxim should be applied to the Appropriations Act is another question entirely, and one on which the General Counsel was silent. See, e.g., United States Dep’t of Commerce v. FLRA, 7 F.3d 243, 245 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Section 7123(c) permits us to pass on an objection even though it has not been urged before the FLRA if “extraordi- nary circumstances” warrant excusing the failure. The union points out that the FLRA requires simultaneous briefing. See 5 C.F.R. s 2429.1(a) (1997), removed and reserved, Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings: Miscellaneous and General Re- quirements, 62 Fed. Reg. 40,911, 40,922 (July 31, 1997). The Defense Department’s arguments regarding the 1996 Appro- priations Act, the union tells us, were unanticipated. Be that as it may, leave to file a reply brief setting forth the argu- ments in opposition was never sought. See 5 C.F.R. s 2429.26(a); see Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U.S. 276, 281 n.3 (1975); NLRB v. FLRA, 2 F.3d 1190, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Nor did the union request reconsideration of the FLRA’s decision. See 5 C.F.R. s 2429.17. It is true that we have considered and ruled on objections first raised on judicial review when the FLRA rested its decision on a ground neither party had argued, so long as a request for reconsideration appeared clearly doomed. See United States Dep’t of Commerce, 7 F.3d at 245; United States Dep’t of Interior v. FLRA, 969 F.2d 1158, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The situation here is not comparable. In the first place, the FLRA did not sua sponte raise the Appropriations Act; the Defense Department argued the point to the agency. Second, it is not so plain that a request for reconsideration would have been futile. Shortly before issuing its opinion in this case, the FLRA handed down two decisions–Office of the Adjutant General, New Hampshire National Guard, 54 F.L.R.A. 301, 310-11 (1998), and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau Washington, D.C. Nevada Air National Guard, Reno, Nevada, 54 F.L.R.A. 316, 325 (1998). The union describes these cases as identical to its case, and states that in both, the FLRA rejected the arguments the union wishes us to consider. But the factual setting of those cases was not the same as this one and, in any event, the FLRA’s opinions do not even deal with several of the arguments contained in the union’s brief in this court. We have no doubt that these precedents would have put the union in the position of waging an uphill battle in getting the FLRA to reconsider, but “the requirement that a litigant present such a petition is ordinari- ly not excused simply ‘because the [FLRA] was unlikely to have granted it.’ ” Compare NLRB v. FLRA, 2 F.3d at 1196. The petition for review is denied. :::FOOTNOTES::: FN1. Administrative leave is “time granted an employee by an agency to perform representational functions” and is considered hours of work. See 5 C.F.R. s 551.424(b). FN2. Section 5.2a states: “The Labor Organization is authorized two thousand two hundred (2200) hours of administrative leave for the following purposes: … (3) Represent Technicians by visiting elect- ed representatives in support or opposition to pending or desired legislation which would impact the working conditions of Techni- cians represented by [the Association of Civilian Technicians].” FN3. 5 U.S.C. s 7116(a) provides that “it shall be an unfair labor practice for an agency–(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter; … (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a labor organization as required by this chapter.” FN4. 5 U.S.C. s 7102(1) states that employees shall have the right to form, join or assist any labor organization and that “such right includes the right–to act for a labor organization in the capacity of a representative and the right, in that capacity, to present the views of the labor organization to heads of agencies and other officials of the executive branch of the Government, the Congress, or other appropriate authorities.”
Copy GEORGIA STATE CHAPTER ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 5, 1999 Decided August 3, 1999 No. 98-1452 Georgia State Chapter Association of Civilian Technicians, Petitioner v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority Daniel M. Schember argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Judith A. Hagley, Attorney, Federal Labor Relations Authority, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were David M. Smith, Solicitor, and William R. Tobey, Deputy Solicitor. Before: Ginsburg, Sentelle, and Randolph, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.
 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

GlobeSt. Healthcare Real Estate 2022

December 06, 2022 - December 07, 2022
Scottsdale, AZ

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!


Learn More

GlobeSt. INDUSTRIAL 2022

December 08, 2022 - December 09, 2022
Scottsdale, AZ

This conference brings together the industry's most influential & knowledgeable industrial real estate executives


Learn More

Global Leaders in Consulting (GLC) 2023

February 16, 2023
London

The Global Leaders in Consulting awards are for those who are making a big impression within the industry, but also worldwide.


Learn More

CORPORATE ATTORNEYS - REMOTE, CT


Shipman is seeking two attorneys, one with 4-6 years of experience and one with 8+ years of experience, to join our corporate and transactio...


Apply Now ›

COMMERCIAL FINANCE ATTORNEY - CT OFFICES; REMOTE will be considered


We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...


Apply Now ›

Education Law Associate- Connecticut


Berchem Moses PC, a prominent Connecticut law firm with offices in Milford and Westport, is actively recruiting candidates for the following...


Apply Now ›

ANAPOL WIESS

11/22/2022
TLI Web

ANAPOL WEISS IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT ATTORNEY JORDAN SOLARZ HAS JOINED THE FIRM


View Announcement ›

ANAPOL WIESS

11/21/2022
TLI Web

ANAPOL WEISS PROUDLY ANNOUNCES THE APPOINTMENT OF KILA BALDWIN AS AN EQUITY SHAREHOLDER


View Announcement ›

LAWYERS OF DISTINCTION

11/18/2022
NLJ Web

Lawyers of Distinction would like to announce...


View Announcement ›