_______________________ January 14, 1998 _______________________ GSBCA 14131-TRAV In the Matter of TRUE L. CARTER, PERRY CROCKETT, FAIR MILTON, CLARENCE J. WASHINGTON, FRANK WILLIAMS, VELMOS WILLIAMS, JR., ROBERT L. CHEATUM, ERVIN WASHINGTON and E. T. WILLIAMS True L. Carter, Memphis, TN; Perry Crockett, Helena, AR; Fair Milton, Helena, AR; Clarence J. Washington, Helena, AR; Frank Williams, West Helena, AR; Velmos Williams, Jr., Marianna, AR; Robert L. Cheatum, West Helena, AR; Ervin Washington, West Helena, AR; and E.T. Williams, Helena, AR, Claimants. Colonel Gregory G. Bean, Department of Human Resources, Memphis District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis, TN, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has requested a decision, under 31 U.S.C.A. 3529 (West Supp. 1997) (section 3529 decision), concerning the legality of reimbursement of certain meal and incidental expenses of seasonal employees. The employees in question travel in a per diem status on temporary duty (TDY) assignments at various locations for approximately four month periods performing revetment operations to stabilize the banks of the Mississippi River. The employees' official duty stations are in Memphis, Tennessee or Greenville, Mississippi, at the respective engineer yards. The specific question for which a section 3529 decision is requested is whether these employees may be paid meals and incidental expenses and a mileage allowance when working at a TDY location that is within 35 miles of the permanent duty station (PDS) in Memphis or Greenville. The Corps of Engineers states that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Memphis District, Corps of Engineers and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 259, provides that when an employee is already in travel status and the TDY location is less than 35 miles from his domicile, the employee will stay at home and receive no lodging payment. Under the MOU the employee would, however, still receive the food allowance (MI&E) based on the number of quarters of the work day the employee is away from his domicile, and would also be paid mileage from his domicile to the TDY location. The agency is concerned that under the relevant provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), MI&E and mileage allowances would not be paid when the TDY station is within 35 miles of the employee's PDS or domicile. The Corps of Engineers has thus requested that the Board issue a decision under section 3529 as to whether it may make these payments under the MOU. Since filing this request for a section 3529 decision, the Corps has informed us that an arbitration hearing concerning this matter is expected to be scheduled in the near future. The Board has recognized that if a claim concerning expenses of travel or relocation is susceptible to resolution under grievance and arbitration procedures provided for in a collective bargaining agreement, we lack the authority to settle the claim using our administrative procedures unless the agreement explicitly and unambiguously excludes the disputed matter from its procedures. Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97- 2 BCA 29,091; accord Brian S. Brame, GSBCA 14333-TRAV (Jan. 8, 1998); Henry E. Carroll, Jr., GSBCA 14206-TRAV (Dec. 29, 1997); William A. Watkins, GSBCA 13970-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,222. These cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction claims involving costs and expenses of travel covered by collective bargaining agreements. Although this matter arises in the context of a request for advance guidance as to the proper resolution of the employees' claim for travel expenses, our authority to provide advice under section 3529 is limited to those matters we would be authorized to settle under 31 U.S.C.A. 3702 (West Supp. 1997). From the record before us, we conclude that these employees are represented by a union and, are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and that the matter before us is proceeding to resolution through arbitration. The agency was provided copies of the Board's decisions and given the opportunity to provide further information to show that the Board could take jurisdiction in this matter. No response to the Board's inquiry has been received to date. Given the information we have, we also conclude that the matter before us is not excluded from the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (1978) (codified as amended in scattered sections of the United States Code),[foot #] 1 the procedures under ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The CSRA was discussed extensively in Bernadette Hastak, where the Board pointed out that when __________________ alternative jurisdictional forums exist, the CSRA resolves conflicts in favor of the remedial system that allows federal employees to enter into collective bargaining agreements which (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- that agreement constitute the exclusive administrative procedures available to resolve these issues. See Dunklebarger v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 96-3200 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 1997). We would have no authority to decide this case if it was presented to us under 31 U.S.C. 3702 based on the agency's denial of the employees claims. Consequently, we have no jurisdiction to issue a section 3529 decision in this matter. This request for a section 3529 decision is dismissed. ______________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) spell out procedures for settling grievances. To the extent the agreement's procedures are not successful, the signatories may elect binding arbitration, and in some circumstances, seek judicial review of the arbitrator's decision. 97-2 BCA at 144,811.