United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
995 F.2d 301 (1993)
Relevant factsFree
The FLRA (defendant) had twice held that Section 5343's prevailing-pay-rate standard was "specifically provided for" by statute, barring collective bargaining under the FSLMRS, but when Bureau (plaintiff) employee unions sought to bargain over pay-rate methods under the nearly identical Section 5349, the FLRA reversed course and found that provision was not "specifically provided for," permitting bargaining; the Bureau appealed the inconsistency.
IssueFree
Whether a federal agency must offer an intelligible explanation when its later interpretation of statutory language is inconsistent with its earlier interpretation of the same language in a similar statute.
Related cases
Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board884 F.2d 34 (1989)Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson443 F.3d 12 (2006)Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians476 U.S. 667 (1986)National Labor Relations Board Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority834 F.2d 191 (1987)Center for Auto Safety, Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration956 F.2d 309 (D.C. Cir. 1992)