The Federal Labor Relations Authority recently dismissed an unfair labor practices complaint filed against an Air Force base near Tucson, Ariz., but after reviewing the decision, the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia remanded it for further review, stating that the plain language of the agreement effectively trumps the way it was interpreted by management officials.
A local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees said the base repudiated provisions of a collective bargaining agreement dealing with employee drug testing and rehabilitation when it fired employees enrolled successfully in a rehabilitation program, according to appeals court decision, No. 05-1241.
It said an administrative law judge initially agreed that the base repudiated the agreements, but that the FLRA reversed the decision once management filed exceptions.
FLRA had concluded that the base’s actions did not constitute “a clear and patent breach” of the parties’ agreements because although the base’s interpretation of the agreements was not irrefutable, it was reasonably and fully consistent with the testimony of the base’s witnesses who were present during contract negotiations.
The appeals court however said that the base’s interpretation of the agreement could not be squared with its plain language establishing a temporary safe harbor for employees who are properly engaged in rehabilitation and not otherwise unsuitable for employment.
The FLRA erred in considering “self serving testimony from employer witnesses” in an attempt to refute the plain terms in the agreement, the appeals court said.
It granted the union’s petition for review, vacated the FLRA’s order and remanded the case to the FLRA to apply a second “prong” of its repudiation test.
