FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, PETITIONER V. FORT KNOX
DEPENDENT SCHOOLS, ET AL.

   No. 89-736

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1989

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Sixth Circuit

   Brief For The Fort Knox Dependent Schools

                            OPINIONS BELOW

   The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-15a) is reported
at 875 F.2d 1179.  The opinion of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority (Pet. App. 18a-35a) is reported at 25 F.L.R.A. 1119.

                             JURISDICTION

   The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on May 11, 1989.
A petition for rehearing was denied on August 10, 1989 (Pet. App.
16a-17a).  The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on November
7, 1989.  The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
1254(1).

                          QUESTIONS PRESENTED

   1. Whether the wages and money-related fringe benefits of federal
employees whose rate of compensation is not entirely fixed by statute
are negotiable "conditions of employment" under 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(14).

   2. Whether a proposal concerning overtime compensation for teachers
at a school for dependents of Army personnel is contrary to 20 U.S.C.
241 -- which provides that education at the dependents schools is to
be comparable to that at local public schools and that, to the maximum
extent practicable, the per pupil costs at the dependents schools
should not exceed the per pupil costs at schools in comparable
communities in the State -- because the proposal does not purport to
be based on prevailing practices at local public schools.

   3. Whether there is a "compelling need" for an Army regulation
providing that, to the maximum extent practicable, the compensation of
teachers at the dependents schools is to be equal to compensation at
local public schools.

                               STATEMENT

   During contract negotiations, the Fort Knox Teachers Association,
which represents teachers at the school for dependents of Army
personnel stationed at the base, proposed that teachers performing bus
chaperone duty be paid overtime at the rate of time and one half.  The
Army declined to negotiate over the proposal.  It contended that
proposals relating to compensation are not negotiable because
compensation is not a "condition() of employment" within the meaning
of 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(14), which defines the phrase to include
"personnel policies, practices, and matters * * * affecting working
conditions." The Army also contended that the proposal, which did not
purport to be based on prevailing practices in the local public
schools, was contrary to 20 U.S.C. 241, which provides that education
at the dependents schools is to be comparable to that at public
schools in the State where the school is located and that education at
the dependents schools should be provided at a cost per pupil that, to
the maximum extent practicable, does not exceed the per pupil cost at
comparable public schools.  In addition, the Army contended that the
proposal is not negotiable because it is contrary to Army Reg. 352-3,
1-7(h), which provides that the compensation paid to teachers at the
dependents schools is to be comparable to that paid at local public
schools, and because there is a "compelling need" for the regulation
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7117(a)(2).

   The Federal Labor Relations Authority rejected each of the Army's
contentions and held the proposal negotiable.  Chairman Calhoun
dissented.  He contended that compensation is not a negotiable
condition of employment under 5 U.S.C. 7102(2).  Pet. App. 32a.

   The court of appeals reversed.  Pet. App. 1a-15a.  It concluded
that "wages and other compensation matters with regard to federal
employees fall outside the duty to bargain." Id. at 5a-6a.  It held in
the alternative that "the Army's regulation precluding wage bargaining
implemented properly the mandate" of Section 241.  Pet. App. at 8a.
Judge Boggs dissented, disagreeing with the majority on both points.
Id. at 9a-15a.

                              DISCUSSION

   The FLRA asks the Court to hold this case for disposition in light
of No. 89-65, Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA (argued Jan. 10, 1989).
While we believe that the decision below is correct, we agree that the
petition should be held while Fort Stewart is pending.

   The dispute in Fort Stewart also arose at a dependents school after
a union made certain proposals relating to the compensation of
teachers.  The Eleventh Circuit held that wages are negotiable
"conditions of employment" and that there is no "compelling need" for
the Army's regulation requiring wages, "to the maximum extent
practicable," to be equal to those at local public schools.  860 F.2d
396 (1988).  Thus, the first and the third questions presented in this
case are identical to questions presented in that case, and the second
question presented here is closely related to the third question
presented in both cases.  In light of the similarities between the two
cases, the holding in Fort Stewart is likely to control here.

                              CONCLUSION

   The petition for a writ of certiorari should be held and disposed
of as appropriate in light of No. 89-65, Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA.

   Respectfully submitted.

   JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.

      Acting Solicitor General /*/

   JANUARY 1990

   /*/ The Solicitor General is disqualified in this case.