USC Chapter 183

in effect

40 U.S.C. § 18301 Findings and purposes

(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—(1) affordable public transportation is essential to the economic vitality of the national capital area and is an essential component of regional efforts to improve air quality to meet environmental requirements and to improve the health of both residents of and visitors to the national capital area as well as to preserve the beauty and dignity of the Nation’s capital; (2) use of mass transit by both residents of and visitors to the national capital area is substantially affected by the prices charged for mass transit services, prices that are substantially affected by labor costs, since more than two-thirds of operating costs are attributable to labor costs; (3) labor costs incurred in providing mass transit in the national capital area have increased at an alarming rate and wages and benefits of operators and mechanics currently are among the highest in the Nation; (4) higher operating costs incurred for public transit in the national capital area cannot be offset by increasing costs to patrons, since this often discourages ridership and thus undermines the public interest in promoting the use of public transit; (5) spiraling labor costs cannot be offset by the governmental entities that are responsible for subsidy payments for public transit services since local governments generally, and the District of Columbia government in particular, are operating under severe fiscal constraints; (6) imposition of mandatory standards applicable to arbitrators resolving arbitration disputes involving interstate compact agencies operating in the national capital area will ensure that wage increases are justified and do not exceed the ability of transit patrons and taxpayers to fund the increase; and (7) federal legislation is necessary under section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution to balance the need to moderate and lower labor costs while maintaining industrial peace. (b) Purpose.—The purpose of this chapter is to adopt standards governing arbitration that must be applied by arbitrators resolving disputes involving interstate compact agencies operating in the national capital area in order to lower operating costs for public transportation in the Washington metropolitan area.

40 U.S.C. § 18302 Definitions

In this chapter, the following definitions apply: (1) Arbitration.—The term “arbitration”—(A) means the arbitration of disputes, regarding the terms and conditions of employment, that is required under an interstate compact governing an interstate compact agency operating in the national capital area; but (B) does not include the interpretation and application of rights arising from an existing collective bargaining agreement. (2) Arbitrator.—The term “arbitrator” refers to either a single arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, chosen under applicable procedures. (3) Interstate compact agency operating in the national capital area.—The term “interstate compact agency operating in the national capital area” means any interstate compact agency that provides public transit services and that was established by an interstate compact to which the District of Columbia is a signatory.

40 U.S.C. § 18303 Standards for arbitrators

(a) Definition.—In this section, the term “public welfare” includes, with respect to arbitration under an interstate compact—(1) the financial ability of the individual jurisdictions participating in the compact to pay for the costs of providing public transit services; and (2) the average per capita tax burden, during the term of the collective bargaining agreement to which the arbitration relates, of the residents of the Washington metropolitan area, and the effect of an arbitration award rendered under that arbitration on the respective income or property tax rates of the jurisdictions that provide subsidy payments to the interstate compact agency established under the compact. (b) Factors in Making Arbitration Award.—An arbitrator rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an interstate compact agency operating in the national capital area may not make a finding or a decision for inclusion in a collective bargaining agreement governing conditions of employment without considering the following factors:(1) The existing terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the bargaining unit. (2) All available financial resources of the interstate compact agency. (3) The annual increase or decrease in consumer prices for goods and services as reflected in the most recent consumer price index for the Washington metropolitan area, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (4) The wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of the employment of other employees who perform, in other jurisdictions in the Washington standard metropolitan statistical area, services similar to those in the bargaining unit. (5) The special nature of the work performed by the employees in the bargaining unit, including any hazards or the relative ease of employment, physical requirements, educational qualifications, job training and skills, shift assignments, and the demands placed upon the employees as compared to other employees of the interstate compact agency. (6) The interests and welfare of the employees in the bargaining unit, including—(A) the overall compensation presently received by the employees, having regard not only for wage rates but also for wages for time not worked, including vacations, holidays, and other excused absences; (B) all benefits received by the employees, including previous bonuses, insurance, and pensions; and (C) the continuity and stability of employment. (7) The public welfare. (c) Ability To Finance Salaries and Benefits Provided in Award.—An arbitrator rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an interstate compact agency operating in the national capital area may not, with respect to a collective bargaining agreement governing conditions of employment, provide for salaries and other benefits that exceed the ability of the interstate compact agency, or of any governmental jurisdiction that provides subsidy payments or budgetary assistance to the interstate compact agency, to obtain the necessary financial resources to pay for wage and benefit increases for employees of the interstate compact agency. (d) Requirements for Final Award.—(1) Written award.—In resolving a dispute submitted to arbitration involving the employees of an interstate compact agency operating in the national capital area, the arbitrator shall issue a written award that demonstrates that all the factors set forth in subsections (b) and (c) have been considered and applied. (2) Prerequisites.—An award may grant an increase in pay rates or benefits (including insurance and pension benefits), or reduce hours of work, only if the arbitrator concludes that any costs to the agency do not adversely affect the public welfare. (3) Substantial evidence.—The arbitrator’s conclusion regarding the public welfare must be supported by substantial evidence.

40 U.S.C. § 18304 Procedures for enforcement of awards

(a) Modifications and Finality of Award.—Within 10 days after the parties receive an arbitration award to which section 18303 of this title applies, the interstate compact agency and the employees, through their representative, may agree in writing on any modifications to the award. After the end of that 10-day period, the award, and any modifications, become binding on the interstate compact agency, the employees in the bargaining unit, and the employees’ representative. (b) Implementation.—Each party to an award that becomes binding under subsection (a) shall take all actions necessary to implement the award. (c) Judicial Review.—Within 60 days after an award becomes binding under subsection (a), the interstate compact agency or the exclusive representative of the employees concerned may bring a civil action in a court that has jurisdiction over the interstate compact agency for review of the award. The court shall review the award on the record, and shall vacate the award or any part of the award, after notice and a hearing, if—(1) the award is in violation of applicable law; (2) the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers; (3) the decision by the arbitrator is arbitrary or capricious; (4) the arbitrator conducted the hearing contrary to the provisions of this chapter or other laws or rules that apply to the arbitration so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party; (5) there was partiality or misconduct by the arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party; (6) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or bias on the part of the arbitrator; or (7) the arbitrator did not comply with the provisions of section 18303 of this title.