ksaldarini@govexec.com
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.
Matthew Young, a new political appointee hired at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) through the Presidential Management Intern program, didn't own much stuff. Rather than have the government pay movers to relocate him, he offered to rent a trailer and drive his belongings to Washington, the location of his new job.
Through a cross-servicing agreement, the Veterans Affairs Department handles travel concerns for the OFHEO. VA authorized Young to transport his household goods by the "do-it-yourself" method.
Young, clearly a neophyte in the matters of federal travel reimbursement, purchased a trailer hitch from U-Haul for $202.50. U-Haul only sold hitches; the company did not rent them.
After the move, VA denied Young reimbursement for the hitch. OFHEO made a plea on his behalf, but VA denied him again.
OFHEO took the matter to the General Services Board of Contract Appeals, arguing that Young purchased the hitch in good faith, was not advised of what is and isn't reimburseable, and that, as a new employee, could not be expected to know the nuances of federal travel regulations.
The GSBCA judge agreed that the government shouldn't require Young to be relocation expert. But the agencies should have known not to simply authorize a "do-it-yourself" move, the judge said.
The agency should have explained to Young that relocation reimbursements are based on the weight of a person's household goods, up to a maximum. The only exception is if paying an employee the actual expenses of relocating would be less expensive than using the weight formula.
So the only way the agency could reimburse Young for the hitch is if the cost did not put Young's actual expenses above the authorized reimbursement under the weight formula, the judge explained.
Lesson: Sometimes, even a great career move has a hitch.
Matter of: Matthew Young (GSBCA 15154-RELO), GSBCA, Mar. 6, 2000.
Bargaining Still Optional
In October 1994, Steve Matich, a claims representative at the Social Security Administration's district office in Santa Rosa, Calif., asked to be transferred to a different unit in the office. The district manager agreed, but decided not to fill the position Matich vacated.
Concerned about the effect on the remaining workers, Matich's union, the American Federation of Government Employees, requested an opportunity to bargain over the manager's decision. The union said that management was required to bargain under such circumstances by section 7106(b)(1) of the federal labor relations statute. Though the statute doesn't force managers to bargain over such matters, President Clinton instructed agencies to do so in a 1993 Executive Order.
SSA refused to bargain, so AFGE took the matter to court.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took the same position as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia took in June when it heard a similar case: President Clinton's order instructing federal managers to bargain over (b)(1) issues is not legally enforceable.
Lesson: If managers in Washington, D.C. don't have to follow the President's order, why should managers in California?
AFGE v. FLRA (9870912), U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 3, 2000.