## Facts

- Federal employees may bargain over “conditions of employment” under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), but not over matters “specifically provided for by Federal statute.”  
- Prevailing-rate employee wages are addressed by statute: most are covered by 5 U.S.C. § 5343, while Bureau of Engraving and Printing employees are covered by 5 U.S.C. § 5349, which uses nearly identical pay-standard language but contains fewer procedural details.
- In prior negotiability decisions under § 5343, the FLRA concluded the statutory wage-setting scheme was “specifically provided for” and therefore outside mandatory bargaining.
- Unions representing six Bureau bargaining units submitted wage-related proposals seeking to negotiate the method for setting, adjusting, and maintaining craft wage rates to the extent permitted by law.
- The Bureau refused to bargain, asserting (among other grounds) that wages were excluded from bargaining because they were “specifically provided for” by statute.
- The FLRA held the proposals negotiable, concluding § 5349 did not “specifically provide for” the wage-setting matters in a way that barred bargaining, thereby treating § 5349 differently from its earlier § 5343 approach.

## Issues

1. Whether the FLRA acted lawfully in finding wage-setting proposals for Bureau employees negotiable under § 5349 despite the FSLMRS exclusion for matters “specifically provided for by Federal statute.”
2. Whether the FLRA adequately explained its departure from its prior precedent treating similar prevailing-rate wage statutes (notably § 5343) as barring bargaining under the “specifically provided for” exception.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the FLRA’s negotiability determination and remanded.
- The court held that the FLRA acted inconsistently with its prior decisions and failed to give an intelligible, reasoned explanation for treating § 5349 differently from § 5343.
- The court emphasized that closely parallel statutory language demands consistent agency interpretation unless the agency acknowledges and explains a change in position.

## Legal Principles

- An agency must either follow its own precedent or provide a reasoned explanation for departing from it; unexplained inconsistency is arbitrary and subject to reversal.
- When interpreting the FSLMRS exclusion for matters “specifically provided for by Federal statute,” the FLRA must apply a coherent interpretation across materially similar statutory wage provisions.
- Judicial review may focus on the adequacy of the agency’s reasoning process rather than definitively resolving the substantive interpretive question in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the FLRA’s finding that wage-setting proposals under § 5349 were negotiable because the FLRA did not adequately explain why nearly identical statutory wage language that previously barred bargaining under § 5343 would permit bargaining under § 5349, and it remanded for further agency consideration consistent with reasoned decision-making.


U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving & Printing v. FLRA, 995 F.2d 301 (D.C. Cir. 1993)