[ v09 p164 ]
09:0164(23)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
9 FLRA No. 23
COLUMBIA BASIN TRADES
COUNCIL AND ALL OF ITS
CONSTITUENT UNIONS, SPOKANE,
WASHINGTON
Union
and
THE GRAND COULEE PROJECT OFFICE,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, GRAND
COULEE, WASHINGTON
Activity
Case No. 0-AR-78
DECISION
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARDS OF
ARBITRATOR WILLIAM H. DORSEY FILED BY THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7122(A)
OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE)
AND PART 2425 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE UNION FILED
AN OPPOSITION.
THE DISPUTE IN THIS CASE AROSE WHEN THE ACTIVITY UNILATERALLY
DISCONTINUED PAYING CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF ITS PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES,
WHOSE WAGES ARE NEGOTIATED, /1/ AT THE "LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION
RATE" AS PROVIDED BY THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. AS
RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, GRIEVANCES WERE FILED OVER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF
THE RATE FOR PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES AND CERTAIN TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES,
AND THE GRIEVANCES WERE ULTIMATELY PRESENTED TO THE ARBITRATOR AT ONE
HEARING. /2/
I. PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES.
WITH RESPECT TO ITS PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES, THE ACTIVITY HAD
NOTIFIED THE UNION THAT PAYMENT OF THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION
RATE WAS NO LONGER WARRANTED. IT WAS THE ACTIVITY'S VIEW THAT THESE
EMPLOYEES WERE A PART OF ITS MAINTENANCE OPERATION AND THEREFORE THEY
WERE NO LONGER "CONSTRUCTION ORIENTED." CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTIVITY
ADVISED THE UNION THAT THE PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES WERE BEING
RECLASSIFIED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE LOWER MAINTENANCE WAGE SCHEDULE.
ACCORDINGLY, ON FEBRUARY 27, 1977, THE ACTIVITY CLASSIFIED THESE
EMPLOYEES AS MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AND ESTABLISHED AN EMERGENCY WAGE
RATE FOR THEM WHICH FROZE THEIR WAGE RATE AT THE LEVEL IT WAS THEN AT
UNTIL THE LOWER MAINTENANCE RATE EXCEEDED IT.
THE ARBITRATOR FIRST QUESTIONED WHETHER PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES
COULD BE UNILATERALLY RECLASSIFIED AS MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF
THE ACTIVITY'S VIEW THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER CONSTRUCTION ORIENTED. HE
NOTED THAT THIS ACTION HAD RESULTED IN THESE EMPLOYEES BEING DENIED
COMPENSATION AT THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE AND THUS BEING
DENIED A WAGE INCREASE THAT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT FOR CERTAIN OTHER
EMPLOYEES ON FEBRUARY 27, 1977. /3/ THE ARBITRATOR READILY ACKNOWLEDGED
THE RIGHT OF THE ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH NEW CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE
MAINTENANCE RANKS, WITH PAY AT APPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE WAGE RATES, FOR
DRILL PERSONNEL WHO WOULD BE DOING A TYPE OF WORK ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
FROM THE TYPE OF WORK BEING DONE BY THE INCUMBENT PERMANENT DRILL
PERSONNEL. HOWEVER, THE ARBITRATOR EMPHASIZED THAT THIS WAS NOT WHAT
HAD OCCURRED IN THIS CASE. HE FOUND THAT, INSTEAD, THE ACTIVITY HAD
SIMPLY DECLARED THAT THE INCUMBENT PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES WERE NO
LONGER CONSTRUCTION ORIENTED AND THAT THEREFORE THEY NO LONGER HAD TO BE
PAID AT THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE. HOWEVER, THE ARBITRATOR
DETERMINED THAT UNDER THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THESE
EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE
BECAUSE OF THEIR STATUS AS CONSTRUCTION CRAFTSMEN AND REJECTED THE
POSITION OF THE ACTIVITY THAT THE AGREEMENT INTENDED THAT PERMANENT
DRILL EMPLOYEES WERE TO BE PAID THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE
ONLY WHEN THEY WERE DOING CONSTRUCTION-ORIENTED WORK. /4/ THE
ARBITRATOR THEREFORE RULED THAT THE INCUMBENT PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES
WERE ENTITLED TO BE PAID THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE UNTIL
THE AGREEMENT LANGUAGE WAS RENEGOTIATED. ACCORDINGLY, HE AWARDED THE
PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES BACKPAY FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY FROM THE
DATE (SOMETIME BEFORE FEBRUARY 27, 1977) THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS NOTIFIED
OF THE INCREASE IN THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE UNTIL THE
PARTIES' AGREEMENT PROVISION WAS RENEGOTIATED. /5/
THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION TO THIS AWARD IS THAT THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO
LAW. IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXCEPTION, THE AGENCY PRINCIPALLY MAINTAINS
THAT THE STATUTORY REFERENCE POINT FOR HOURLY WAGES, WHETHER ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS ACT OR NEGOTIATED, IS THE LOCALLY
PREVAILING RATE. THE AGENCY'S POSITION IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE
PREVAILING RATE PRINCIPLE OF THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THE
NEGOTIATION OF WAGES FOR PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES COMPELLED AND
AUTHORIZED THE ACTIVITY TO UNILATERALLY IMPOSE A MAINTENANCE RATE OF PAY
ON PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES ONCE IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE ACTIVITY THAT
SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT WAS NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO LOCALLY PREVAILING RATES
AND PRACTICES OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PARTIES'
AGREEMENT THAT THEY BE PAID AT THE HIGHER LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION
RATE. THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE UNION CAN THEN REACT THROUGH
APPROPRIATE ACTION AND TRADITIONAL PROCEDURES, BUT MAINTAINS THAT
MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO INITIALLY ACT IN WHAT IT VIEWS TO BE CONFORMANCE
WITH LAW MAY NOT BE RESTRAINED. THE AGENCY THEREFORE ARGUES THAT THE
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD IS CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE IT CONDITIONS THE
ADJUSTMENT OF THE RATE OF PAY OF PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES ON THE
RENEGOTIATION OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. IN
OPPOSITION, THE UNION'S POSITION IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE ARBITRATOR
PROPERLY ENFORCED THE WAGE SCHEDULE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT.
THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION FAILS TO ESTABLISH
THAT THE AWARD RELATING TO THE PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES, WHICH
ESSENTIALLY ENFORCED THE WAGE SCHEDULE OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT UNTIL IT WAS RENEGOTIATED, IS CONTRARY TO LAW. AS
HAS BEEN NOTED, ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS CASE HAVE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPRESSLY PRESERVED AND RECOGNIZED BY
LAW, TO NEGOTIATE WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING RATES AND PAY PRACTICES IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR. AS WAS EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COURT IN IBEW V ANDRUS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 80-M-701 (D. COLO. MAR. 31, 1981), THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR AND ITS ACTIVITIES "DO NOT SET THE RATES OF PAY" OF THESE
EMPLOYEES. ID. AT 2 OF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. INSTEAD,
PRESERVATION OF THE BARGAINING RIGHTS OF PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES
COMPELLED NEGOTIATIONS AS THE RESPONSE OF THE PARTIES TO ANY ASSERTED
CHANGE IN PREVAILING RATES AND PAY PRACTICES. THEREFORE, CONTRARY TO
THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION THAT THE PARTICULAR ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE
ACTIVITY WAS REQUIRED BY PREVAILING RATE PRINCIPLES, ONLY NEGOTIATIONS
ARE COMPELLED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE NO PRECISE RATE OR PAY
PRACTICE IS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS THE MEANS BY
WHICH SUCH RATES AND PRACTICES MUST BE DETERMINED AND OBTAINED. SEE
MEDLER V. UNITED STATES, 616 F.2D 450, 454 (9TH CIR. 1980).
ACCORDINGLY, THE ARBITRATOR PROPERLY REFUSED TO SANCTION THE ACTIVITY'S
UNILATERAL IMPOSITION OF A LOWER MAINTENANCE RATE OF PAY ON PERMANENT
DRILL EMPLOYEES AND PROPERLY INVOKED RENEGOTIATION AS THE MEANS FOR THE
PARTIES TO CONFORM THEIR AGREEMENT TO CURRENTLY PREVAILING PRACTICE,
WITH THE PREEXISTING AGREEMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL SUCH RENEGOTIATION.
II. TEMPORARY HOURLY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES.
WITH RESPECT TO THESE EMPLOYEES, THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE
PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDES: "TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
IN THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS WILL BE HIRED AT LOCAL PREVAILING
CONSTRUCTION RATES OF PAY." THE ACTIVITY, AFTER RECEIVING A LEGAL
OPINION FROM THE AGENCY'S SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, HAD NOTIFIED THE UNION
THAT PAYMENT TO THESE EMPLOYEES OF THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION
RATES AS PROVIDED BY THE AGREEMENT WAS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED ONLY IF SUCH
PAY PRACTICE WAS A LOCALLY PREVAILING PRACTICE AND THAT A WAGE SURVEY
CONDUCTED BY THE ACTIVITY REVEALED THAT IT WAS NOT. ACCORDINGLY, THE
ACTIVITY TERMINATED THE PAYMENT OF THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION
RATES AND COMMENCED PAYING LOWER MAINTENANCE RATES OF PAY TO NEW HIRES
IN THESE CLASSIFICATIONS ON DECEMBER 18, 1977. FOR EMPLOYEES ON THE
ROLLS PRIOR TO DECEMBER 18, THE ACTIVITY TERMINATED PAYMENT OF THE LOCAL
PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATES ON FEBRUARY 12, 1978.
ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTIVITY'S WAGE SURVEY, THE ARBITRATOR CONCLUDED
THAT CERTAINLY AS OF THE DAY OF THE ARBITRATION HEARING, THE PAYMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION RATES TO THESE EMPLOYEES WAS NOT A LOCALLY PREVAILING
PRACTICE. HOWEVER, THE ARBITRATOR STILL HAD TO DEAL WITH WHAT EFFECT TO
GIVE TO THIS SURVEY RESULT. THE ACTIVITY INSISTED THAT THE WAGE SURVEY
RENDERED THE AGREEMENT PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF THE LOCAL PREVAILING
CONSTRUCTION RATES ILLEGAL AND OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT AND THAT
CONSEQUENTLY IT HAD ACTED PROPERLY WHEN IT UNILATERALLY DECLARED THE
AGREEMENT PROVISION NULL AND VOID. HOWEVER, THE ARBITRATOR QUESTIONED
THE AUTHORITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE ACTIVITY ABROGATING, SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF A LEGAL OPINION OF THE AGENCY'S SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, AN EXPRESS
PROVISION OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE
ARBITRATOR ALSO NOTED THE ACTIVITY'S REFUSAL TO SEEK AN OPINION FROM THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ITS UNILATERAL ACTIONS.
STRESSING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
IN THIS AREA, BUT RULING THAT THE ACTIVITY'S UNILATERAL ACTIONS WERE IN
EXPRESS VIOLATION OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR ORDERED THE
PARTIES TO REQUEST A DETERMINATION FROM THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL AS TO
WHETHER THESE EMPLOYEES COULD CONTINUE TO BE PAID AT THE LOCAL
PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATES. ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT, HE
DETERMINED THAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO BE PAID THE LOCAL
PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
RULED OTHERWISE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ARBITRATOR AWARDED THESE EMPLOYEES
BACKPAY UNTIL THE PARTIES RECEIVED A DECISION FROM THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL DETERMINING THAT THESE EMPLOYEES COULD NOT CONTINUE TO BE PAID
AT THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATES. THE ARBITRATOR EXPLAINED
THAT BY THIS AWARD HE HAD ATTEMPTED TO MAKE THESE EMPLOYEES WHOLE FOR
THE IMPROPER UNILATERAL ACTION OF THE ACTIVITY AND AT THE SAME TIME
AFFORD THE ACTIVITY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO SETTLE
THE DISPUTE AS TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE PAYMENT OF SUCH RATES.
THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION TO THIS AWARD IS THAT THE AWARD IS CONTRARY TO
LAW. HOWEVER, IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXCEPTION, THE AGENCY MAKES
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CONTENTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED SUPRA WITH
RESPECT TO PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES. THE AGENCY AGAIN ARGUES THAT THE
PAYMENT OF THE LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATES WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW
AS NOT BEING A PREVAILING PRACTICE AND THAT THEREFORE THE ACTIVITY ACTED
PROPERLY TO UNILATERALLY ADJUST THE COMPENSATION OF THESE EMPLOYEES TO
CONFORM TO THE LOCALLY PREVAILING RATES. IN TERMS OF THIS AWARD, THE
AGENCY SPECIFICALLY MAINTAINS THAT THE AWARD OF BACKPAY UNTIL RECEIPT OF
THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW. /6/
THE AGENCY CLAIMS THAT THE ACTIVITY PROPERLY ACTED WHEN IT DID WITHOUT
THE REQUIREMENT OF A DECISION BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL AND THAT
THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD OF BACKPAY UNTIL RECEIPT OF THAT
DECISION IS CONTRARY TO LAW. IN OPPOSITION, THE UNION PRINCIPALLY
MAINTAINS THAT IN VIEW OF THE WAGE PROVISION OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD OF BACKPAY WAS PROPER.
THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION FAILS TO ESTABLISH
THAT THIS AWARD, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ENFORCED THE WAGE SCHEDULE OF THE
PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT UNTIL RECEIPT OF THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S DECISION, IS CONTRARY TO LAW. AS DETERMINED WITH
RESPECT TO THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTION RELATING TO PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES,
PRESERVATION OF THE BARGAINING RIGHTS OF THESE EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED BY
LAW MAKES IT IMPERMISSIBLE FOR WAGE RATES AND PAY PRACTICES TO BE
IMPOSED UNILATERALLY. ACCORDINGLY, CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTION OF THE
AGENCY, THE ARBITRATOR PROPERLY REFUSED TO SANCTION THE ACTIVITY'S
UNILATERAL IMPOSITION OF LOWER MAINTENANCE RATES OF PAY ON THESE
EMPLOYEES AND PROPERLY REMEDIED THE ACTIVITY'S ABROGATION OF THE
AGREEMENT BY ENFORCING THE WAGE SCHEDULE IN THE AGREEMENT UNTIL AN
APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THESE EMPLOYEES
COULD CONTINUE TO BE PAID AT CONSTRUCTION RATES OF PAY. FURTHER, IN
VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROCEDURES OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL PROVIDING FOR
THE RESOLUTION OF SUCH DISPUTES (SEE 4 C.F.R. PART 22), THE AGENCY HAS
ALSO NOT DEMONSTRATED IN WHAT MANNER THE ARBITRATOR'S INVOCATION OF THE
EXPERTISE OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IS CONTRARY TO LAW.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE AGENCY'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE AWARDS OF
THE ARBITRATOR RELATING TO BOTH PERMANENT DRILL EMPLOYEES AND TEMPORARY
HOURLY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES ARE DENIED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 23, 1982
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS CASE HAVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESERVED AND RECOGNIZED BY SECTION 9(B) OF THE
PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS ACT OF 1972, PUB. L. NO. 92-392, 5 U.S.C. 5343
NOTE, AND SECTION 704 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978, PUB. L.
NO. 95-454, 5 U.S.C. 5343 NOTE, TO NEGOTIATE WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING RATES AND
PRACTICES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
/2/ ONE OF THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARDS ALSO COVERED TEMPORARY DRILL
EMPLOYEES AT THE ACTIVITY. THE ACTIVITY HAS NOT FILED AN EXCEPTION TO
THIS AWARD.
/3/ THE ACTIVITY HAD PUT A WAGE INCREASE INTO EFFECT FOR ITS
TEMPORARY DRILL EMPLOYEES (WHOM THE ACTIVITY CONTINUED TO PAY AT THE
LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE) EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 27, 1977, AFTER
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN NOTIFIED OF AN INCREASE IN THE
LOCAL PREVAILING CONSTRUCTION RATE. THE ARBITRATOR ORDERED BACKPAY FOR
THESE TEMPORARY DRILL PERSONNEL FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY FROM THE DATE
THE ACTIVITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE INCREASE (THE PRECISE DATE OF WHICH IS
NOT SPECIFIED IN THE AWARD OR IN THE RECORD) TO FEBRUARY 27, 1977, WHEN
THE ACTIVITY ACTUALLY INCREASED THE WAGE RATE OF THE TEMPORARY DRILL
EMPLOYEES. AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, THE AGENCY DID NOT TAKE EXCEPTION
TO THIS AWARD.
/4/ SPECIFICALLY, THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT PROVIDED:
CONSTRUCTION CRAFTS: TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEES IN THE
FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS
WILL RECEIVE BASIC RATE OF PAY EQUAL TO THE LOCAL PREVAILING
CONSTRUCTION RATE.
/5/ THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THIS PROVISION WAS APPARENTLY
RENEGOTIATED ON AUGUST 10, 1980.
/6/ PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' REQUEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AWARD,
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL ISSUED A DECISION. ON THE BASIS OF THE
ARBITRATOR'S FINDING THAT PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION RATES OF PAY TO
TEMPORARY HOURLY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WAS NOT A LOCALLY
PREVAILING PRACTICE, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL RULED THAT THESE EMPLOYEES
"MAY NOT CONTINUE TO BE PAID AT CONSTRUCTION RATES OF PAY." MATTER OF:
GRAND COULEE PROJECT OFFICE, B-198590, AUGUST 26, 1981, AT 10 OF
DECISION. HOWEVER, NOTING THAT UNDER THE STATUTE HE DID NOT HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO REVIEW ARBITRATION AWARDS, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
"EXPRESS(ED) NO OPINION ON THE ARBITRATOR'S RULING THAT THE TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO BACKPAY AT CONSTRUCTION RATES UNTIL THE DATE
OF RECEIPT OF A COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION DECLARING SUCH PAYMENTS
INVALID." ID. AT 7 OF DECISION.