Cite as: 508 U. S. 22 (1993)
Opinion of the Court
clarification by the Secretary convinces us that when the regulations identify selection of a representative as the condition necessary for coverage under subclause (i), they refer only to those representatives with lawful authority to negotiate agreements.17
Thus, under both the statute and the DOL regulations, employees are "covered" by subclause (i) when they designate a representative who lawfully may bargain collectively on their behalf—under the statute, because such authority is necessary to reach the kind of "agreement" described in subclause (i), and under the regulation, because such authority is a condition of "representative" status for subclause (i) purposes. Because we construe the statute and regulation in harmony, we need not comment further on petitioners' argument that the Secretary's interpretation of the 1985 Amendments is entitled to special deference.
Petitioners in this case did not have a representative authorized by law to enter into an agreement with their employer providing for use of comp time under subclause (i). Accordingly, they were "not covered by subclause (i)," and subclause (ii) authorized the individual agreements challenged in this litigation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered.
17 Accordingly, public employers need not fear that they will find themselves dealing with a different representative for each employee, should each of their employees choose to select his or her own representative. See Brief for the National Association of Counties et al. as Amici Curiae 17. Unless such individual designations were "in accordance with State or local law and practices," the designees would not be "representatives" for purposes of subclause (i).
35
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Last modified: October 4, 2007