Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
995 F.2d 301 (1993)


Facts

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) (defendant) administered the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), 5 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. The FSLMRS generally allowed federal employee unions to bargain collectively with government units. However, the FSLMRS stated that employees were not allowed to bargain about matters “specifically provided for” by federal statute. The Prevailing Rate Systems Act (PRSA) was a federal statute that set the pay-rate standard for most federal employees in 5 U.S.C. § 5343. In 5 U.S.C. § 5349, the PRSA used identical language to set the pay-rate standard for employees in the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Bureau) (plaintiff). The only substantive difference between § 5343 and § 5349 was that § 5343 described the rate setting process in greater detail. In two recent cases arising from § 5343 and involving employee unions, the FLRA had held that setting the pay-rate standard was “specifically provided for” by statute, and that, therefore, the FSLMRS barred the unions from bargaining about prevailing-pay standards. Unions representing Bureau employees sought to bargain with the Bureau over the method by which the Bureau set employee pay rates under § 5349. The Bureau refused. The unions appealed to the FLRA. Contrary to the FLRA's holdings in the two § 5343 cases, the FLRA ruled that § 5349 did not involve an employment matter “specifically provided for” by statute, and that, therefore, the FSLMRS did not bar the Bureau union from bargaining about the prevailing-pay rate under § 5349. The Bureau appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.