CONSOLIDATED DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
I. Introduction
The petitions for review in each of these four cases1 come before the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance (“the Board”) pursuant to § 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (“FSLMRS”), 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E), as applied by § 220(c)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”) 2 U.S.C. § 1351(c)(1). Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties’ contentions, the Board has determined, for reasons set forth below, that the Unions’ proposals contain non-negotiable elements.
II Statement of the Cases
The Employing Office’s (“the Architect”) Construction Management Division utilizes members of the Plumbers’ and Electrical Workers’ bargaining units to perform construction work at the Capitol Hill Campus. The Architect, Plumbers Union and Electrical Workers Union are negotiating their initial collective bargaining agreement and this consolidated negotiability dispute arose in that context. The underlying Union proposals (02-LMR- 03, 02-LMR-04) would require the Architect, on behalf of each individual bargaining unit employee, to make pre-tax fringe benefit contributions into the Unions’ employee benefit trust funds (e.g., health & life insurance, retirement, training, savings). When the Architect declared those proposals to be nonnegotiable the Unions made interim implementation proposals, ostensibly to maintain the bargaining unit employees’ pay status quo ante until the Board decided the underlying negotiability disputes. The Architect also declared those proposals to be non-negotiable and the Unions duly filed petitions for review with the Board (02-LMR-05, 02 LMR-06).
Earlier in the bargaining process the Board decided the parties’ negotiability dispute arising from the Unions’ proposals for holiday premium pay.3 The Board determined that while the Architect exercised his discretion, under 5 U.S.C. § 5349, to adopt Labor Department wage determinations under the Davis-Bacon Act, that “Davis-Bacon is not a straitjacket that precludes any bargaining over holiday premium pay” nor does it foreclose these parties “from negotiating other components of pay independent of Davis-Bacon”. See Case No. 01-LMR-01, at page 16. These Board decisions recognized, as a general matter, the negotiability of pay and fringe benefit issues between the Architect and the Plumbers and Electrical Workers Unions. The Board specifically held, in this regard, as follows:
