Home Media Center News Releases

Washington, D.C.-The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), implementing a decision of the Supreme Court in a case argued by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), has said again that federal agencies have the obligation to bargain with their unions over unforeseen issues that arise between the parties during the life of a contract.

The Supreme Court ruled S-4 last March that union-initiated midterm bargaining was permissible under federal labor law and that the FLRA had the expertise and authority to determine the circumstances under which such bargaining would be required. In a 2-1 decision, the FLRA held that not only is union-initiated midterm bargaining permissible, but it is mandated by the federal labor statute.

NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said that "all federal employees should be pleased that the FLRA has, after another review, reaffirmed its longstanding support for midterm bargaining." It is "one very important way," she said, "that labor and management can sit down with each other at the bargaining table as equals."

The FLRA said that, consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions, it had considered again the question of union-initiated midterm bargaining and concluded that agencies have an obligation to bargain over proposals "dealing with matters not contained in or covered by" the term agreement reached by the parties.

The independent federal body said it based its decision on two key reasons: first, that union-initiated midterm proposals "further the purposes of the [federal labor] statute, and thus restate a statutory obligation" in that law; and, second, that "they are not inconsistent with law, rule or regulation."

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, there was a split among federal appeals courts over the legality of union-initiated midterm bargaining. In some parts of the country, only agency managers had the right, during the life of a labor agreement, to demand bargaining over new and unforeseen issues. Employees, through their collective bargaining representatives, had to wait until the end of the contract period.

The FLRA decision supports a position long-advocated by NTEU that midterm bargaining is appropriate for dealing with matters unanticipated and therefore not addressed by an existing labor agreement, such as discovery of a safety hazard in the workplace.

In its analysis and decision last March, the High Court rejected government contentions that midterm bargaining would be disruptive. The majority decision echoed the NTEU argument that collective bargaining, particularly when the parties come to the table as equals, contributes to the effective conduct of public business. The FLRA's decision reinforces this position.

In the original FLRA case involving this matter, a union proposed during negotiations for a term agreement a provision allowing it the right to raise and bargain over issues during the life of the agreement. The agency refused even to bargain over that question, much less to agree to include it in the labor agreement. The FLRA ruled that the refusal to bargain over the proposal was an unfair labor practice.

"The FLRA's decision will serve everyone well in the federal sector," Kelley said, "including the taxpayers."

NTEU is the largest independent federal union, representing some 155,000 employees in 24 agencies and departments.