FLRA reverses award that allowed GSA to suspend telework contract CASE FILE: AFGE, Council 236 and General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service Auburn, Wash., 109 LRP 22847 <http://webmail.aol.com/CF3/servlet/GetCase?cite=109+LRP+22847> (FLRA 04/17/09).
Ruling: The FLRA set aside an arbitration award that found the agency's cancellation of a telework agreement with a union representative was not a violation.
What it means: According to FLRA precedent, Section 359 of Pub lic Law 106-346 does not authorize union officials to perform representational duties from another work site, but it does not prohibit agreements that allow it.
Summary: The grievant was a union representative on 100 percent official time. In 2001, the grievant and the agency agreed to let the grievant telecommute. In 2006, the agency cancelled the agreement. It did so in response to HUD, 104 LRP 46283<http://webmail.aol.com/CF3/servlet/GetCase?cite=104+LRP+46283> , 60 FLRA 311 <http://webmail.aol.com/CF3/servlet/GetCase?cite=60+FLRA+311> (FLRA 2004), in which the FLRA ruled that Section 359 of Public Law 106-346 didn't authorize union representatives on 100 percent official time to telecommute. The union challenged the agency's action. The arbitrator denied the grievance, agreeing with the agency's interpretation that the decision prohibited telecommuting for union representatives on 100 percent official time.
The union filed an exception, contending that the award was contrary to law in that it was based on a misinterpretation of HUD. The FLRA noted that union representatives are guaranteed official time for bargaining and certain other activities, and official time for other types of representational duties that are not specifically barred by 5 USC 7131<http://webmail.aol.com/CF3/servlet/GetReg?cite=5+USC+7131> (b) may be bargained for. Accordingly, an agreement allow ing a union representative to perform representational duties on official time while working from remote locations is authorized by the statute and enforceable, unless another law prohibits the agreement.
Regarding the agency's reliance on HUD, the FLRA explained that Section 359 does not authorize union officials to perform representational duties from another work site, but it does not prohibit agreements that allow it. The agency pointed to no law prohibiting the telework agreement, so the FLRA set aside the award as contrary to law.
The union also alleged that the arbitrator should have found that the agency violated the statute by interfering with the representative's union activities. This argument was not raised before the arbitrator, so the FLRA declined to address it.
