______________________________ December 29, 1997 ______________________________ GSBCA 14206-TRAV In the Matter of HENRY E. CARROLL, JR. Justice Moor, National Treasury Employees Union, Internal Revenue Service, National Office Chapter 65, Rochester Hills, MI, appearing for Claimant. David K. Barnes, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Treasury. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, Henry E. Carroll, Jr., a civilian employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), seeks $2,314 in connection with his use of both a rental car and his privately owned vehicle (POV) during a temporary duty assignment. The agency has requested that the Board dismiss this claim on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim because claimant is covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides the exclusive method for resolving this dispute. Because the collective bargaining agreement covers this type of travel dispute and provides that its grievance procedure "will be the only procedure available to bargaining unit employees," we agree with IRS. Background Claimant, an employee of IRS stationed in Detroit, is a member of a collective bargaining unit, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which is representing him in this case. Beginning in August 1996, claimant was authorized to travel on a four-month detail to Ogden, Utah, as one of a three-member team to test software. Claimant, who, according to NTEU, is "morbidly obese," was authorized to rent a car for the team, but the two other team members brought their POVs to Utah. Because of claimant's obesity, which the agency recognizes as a disability, claimant rented an extra large car. Claimant believed that, under the rental car agreement, only he could drive the team car. Claimant contends that, during the detail, his supervisor demanded to use the team rental car over a weekend and threatened him. Claimant contends further that because he was intimidated, he signed a contract presented to him by his supervisor on October 15 stating that he would rent a vehicle at his own expense. He then rented a vehicle from October 16 until December 7, and his supervisor took over the rental of the team car. Claimant submitted a travel voucher seeking $1,384.60 for rental car expenses including gas, mileage, and the rental fee. Claimant's supervisor denied all expenses relating to the car rental, and claimant filed a grievance. Claimant utilized all three "steps" of the grievance process under the collective bargaining agreement, and on May 7, 1997, the agency issued its final denial of all claimed expenses. Although under the collective bargaining agreement this adverse decision could have been appealed to binding arbitration, the union filed this case here on behalf of claimant on May 28, 1997. In this case, claimant also seeks reimbursement of $103 because he used a POV instead of a government-supplied "pool car" for traveling twenty-eight miles to and from his temporary residence and post of duty for thirty-nine days. Alternatively to the principal claim, claimant seeks $826, which is the difference between the rental price of a full-sized car and the larger model required due to his disability. Discussion The agency seeks dismissal of this case on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this claim because claimant may grieve these matters under the collective bargaining agreement. The agency cites this Board's recent decision in Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA 29,091. We agree with the agency. As we recognized in Hastak, if a claim can be resolved by using a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedures, 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. In so ruling, this Board applied the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and precedent construing that law. Here, as in Hastak, the CSRA and the collective bargaining agreement contain the same definition of grievance. The term grievance means any complaint by an employee concerning any matter relating to his employment, or any claimed violation or misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation affecting conditions of employment. 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(9); National Agreement between the National Treasury Employees' Union and the Internal Revenue Service, Document 6648 (Rev. 2-97) (Agreement), Art. 41, 2A. Conditions of employment include personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions, unless they relate to prohibited political activities or the classification of a position or are specifically provided for by federal statute. 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(14). Claimant's request for reimbursement for the rental car and his POV and the difference in cost between a full-sized and extra-large vehicle do not fall within any of these exceptions. Claimant's claims for travel expenses stem from his dispute with his supervisor regarding entitlement to use of a rental car during a temporary duty assignment. These claims relate to conditions of employment and are cognizable under the collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedures.[foot #] 1 An employee's work-related travel is expressly covered under Article 29 of the collective bargaining agreement. The grievance process would by definition include claimant's contention that the agency violated the statute and regulations regarding an employee's official travel -- since the dispute over reimbursement for the vehicles both relates to his employment and affects conditions of his employment. We note that here as in Hastak both the NTEU and the IRS interpreted the collective bargaining agreement as including the instant dispute over the rental car reimbursement within the grievance procedures in the agreement. The manner in which the parties to a collective bargaining agreement interpret the agreement as shown by their course of dealing is persuasive evidence of the correct interpretation of the agreement. Hastak, 97-2 BCA at 144,812 (citing Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Bonner v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 781 F.2d 202, 206 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In sum, the instant disputes concerning claimant's entitlement to reimbursement for the rental car and the use of a privately owned vehicle and an upgraded rental car during his temporary duty are subject to the collective bargaining agreement. As such, this Board lacks jurisdiction over this claim. Decision This claim is dismissed. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The collective bargaining agreement specifies: "This [grievance] procedure will be the only procedure available to bargaining unit employees for the processing and disposition of grievances . . . except when the employee has a statutory right of choice, that is adverse actions, actions taken for unacceptable performance, or EEO complaints." Agreement Art. 41, 2B. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- __________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge