Legal Briefs: Food fight

Every Friday on GovExec.com, Legal Briefs reviews cases that involve, or provide valuable lessons to, federal managers. We report on the decisions of a wide range of review panels, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and federal courts.

Employees at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can now breathe a collective sigh of relief, secure in the knowledge that they did not break the law when they ate food offered at several internal agency workshops held nearly three years ago.

NRC officials asked the Comptroller General to review how it handled five workshops for its employees on internal strategic planning in July 1997. The conference facility where the workshops were held charged a flat fee of $45 per person. Refreshments and lunch were included in the fee.

But as a general rule, Uncle Sam won't take federal employees out to lunch on his dime. Refreshments and food can only be free if they are offered in connection with a training program. NRC's workshops weren't considered training under the law. With a heavy conscience, NRC calculated that the agency had spent about $1,157 on food at the workshops, as part of the non-negotiable facility rate.

It took more than two years, but the Comptroller General finally concluded that the NRC had not committed a sin. The facility fee would have been the same whether or not the employees had eaten the food offered, the final decision noted. In addition, the price for the facility was reasonable compared to other conference centers. The employees do not have to reimburse the agency for the sandwiches and soda they ate, the Comptroller General ruled.

Lesson: Every once in a while there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Matter of: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (B-281963), Comptroller General, Dec. 1, 1999.

Third Opinion

Audrey Trembly, a Postal Service employee, was offered a modified position when she returned to work after suffering an on-the-job injury. But the job that the Office of Worker's Compensation Programs suggested, a modified clerk position, was not within her medical restrictions, Trembly said. She asked the Merit Systems Protection Board to review her case.

Trembly presented MSPB with a note from her doctor saying she had limited driving ability and couldn't perform certain other physical tasks. The OWCP presented MSPB with a second doctor's opinion, showing that Trembly wasn't as debilitated as she alleged. Her own doctor agreed. But Trembly produced a third doctor who reiterated the medical restrictions offered by the first physician.

MSBP turned the whole mess back to the OWCP, dismissing the appeal entirely. The OWCP, not MSPB, has the expertise to decide if a position is suitable for an employee based on his or her medical limitations, the board ruled.

Lesson: MSPB doesn't want to get between dueling doctors.

Audrey Trembly v. USPS, Merit Systems Protection Board (PHO353990209-I-1), Feb. 24, 2000.