_______________

                              August 22, 1997
                              _______________


                             GSBCA 13970-TRAV


                    In the Matter of WILLIAM A. WATKINS


     William A. Watkins, Albany, NY, Claimant.

     Christopher S. Martin, Assistant District Director, Employment
Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Department of
Labor, Albany, NY, appearing for Department of Labor.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Claimant, William A. Watkins, is an investigator for the
Department of Labor.  He seeks to recover $279.30 in travel costs
incurred while attending proceedings in a United States District
Court located near his permanent work station.  Mr. Watkins
assisted at and testified at these proceedings in an official
capacity.  When the agency official responsible for approving the
claimant's request approved only a small portion of the claim, Mr.
Watkins, a member of the union, filed a formal grievance under
applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. 
Unsatisfied with the progress of these proceedings, he has
subsequently appealed the denial of his claim to this Board.  Given
the exclusivity of grievance procedure as a means of resolving Mr.
Watkins's dispute with agency management, we dismiss his claim.  

                                Background

     In February 1996, claimant attended United States District
Court proceedings at the federal court house near his office.  He
subsequently sought $235.95 for twelve round trips from his home to
the court house.  This claim included $4.75 per day for the cost of
parking.  Payment of the claim was withheld pending receipt of
additional support for the claim.  Mr. Watkins found the request
unjustified and initiated a step one grievance procedure with the
filing of a Department of Labor/National Council of Field Labor
Locals grievance form.  A reply to the grievance was provided on
March 25, 1996.  In that reply, the agency advised Mr. Watkins that
it had sent his voucher forward for processing but authorized
payment only for two days.  In the absence of documentation in
support of expenses claimed for the other days, the remaining
portion of the claim would not be paid.  Claimant found the
response unsatisfactory and promptly filed a step two grievance on
March 27.  

     During the month of April, Mr. Watkins again found it
necessary to attend proceedings at the same federal court house. 
He subsequently submitted a claim for $119.45 in travel costs.  The
agency approved payment of $38.95 but denied the remainder of his
claim.  On June 12, Mr. Watkins submitted a step three grievance in
which he incorporated the grievances which are the subject of the
step one and step two grievances and added the agency denial of his
April claim.  The amount of his February and April claim which
remained unpaid now came to a total of $279.30.
  
     In November 1996, Mr. Watkins appealed the agency's denial of
his claim for the $270.30 to this Board.  In submitting his claim,
he explains that his efforts to pursue the claim through formal
grievance procedures have been "to no avail."  In a letter dated
July 29, 1997, he advised us that a response has still not been
given to his grievances and that, in the absence of a timely
response, he is now entitled to go to the next procedural step.  

                                Discussion

     From information contained in the record for this case, it is
clear that, prior to bringing this matter to the Board, Mr. Watkins
grieved the agency's action pursuant to procedures set forth in a
collective bargaining agreement.  Unless a matter such as this is
expressly excluded from the agreement's grievance procedures, this
was the proper course of action to follow if Mr. Watkins remained
dissatisfied with the agency's action.  In another case involving
the grievance of a Government employee covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, we recently wrote:  

     The [Civil Service Reform Act] plainly provides that, for
     federal employees whose grievances are not excluded from
     collective bargaining agreements, the agreements are the
     only administrative procedures available for resolving
     grievances.  Thus, 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.

Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938, et al., slip op. At 4 (June 26,
1997).  In the same decision, we also noted that our interpretation
of the statute in question is consistent with that of the General
Accounting Office, which previously had the authority to settle
travel claims.  

     Mr. Watkins has obviously encountered problems in the
processing of his step two and step three grievances.  The problem,
however, does not appear to be with the subject matter of his
grievances.  The mere fact that the step one grievance was
processed convinces us that the matter at issue is not one excluded
from the grievance procedures under the applicable collective
bargaining agreement.  If Mr. Watkins is still intent on resolving
his disagreement with agency management, therefore, he must
continue to do so in accordance with the agreement.  In any event,
under law, this is not a matter which we have the authority to
consider.  We, therefore, dismiss the claim. 




                                        __________________ 
                                        EDWIN B. NEILL
                                        Board Judge