Photo credit: www.govexec.com
A federal judge recently ruled against President Trump’s decision to use a provision from the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to revoke collective bargaining rights for a significant portion of federal employees, citing national security as the rationale. The judge described this justification as a “mere pretext,” aimed primarily at retaliating against unions that opposed the administration’s workforce strategies.
In a detailed 46-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman elaborated on his decision to block the implementation of the executive order issued in March, following legal action taken by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).
Friedman highlighted that the scope of the executive order contradicted the intent behind the Civil Service Reform Act. He pointed to statements from White House fact sheets and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which implied that the use of the national security exemption was more about pushing through unrelated policy changes rather than genuine security concerns. He expressed confidence that the NTEU would likely succeed in its challenge against this order.
In typical legal proceedings, there is an assumption that government officials act appropriately in their roles, known as the “presumption of regularity.” However, Friedman noted that the explanations provided by the White House and OPM regarding the executive order, as well as the exclusion of certain unions from this mandate, undermined that assumption.
“In summary, the OPM guidance offers little insight into national security aspects, despite the national security context of the law,” he commented. “Upon review, the guidance and the executive order seem primarily focused on reshaping the federal workforce rather than addressing national security issues. The guidance outlines previous directives from the president and the OPM, indicating how collective bargaining agreements posed barriers to achieving these goals, now purportedly eliminated by this executive order. This strongly suggests that the use of the national security exemption was intended to dismantle obstacles created by labor laws.”
Even when assessed strictly on its face, the judge found that the president’s stipulations—which involved relocating entire agencies outside the federal sector labor law, despite only minor portions of their operations relating to national security—failed to satisfy the requirement that an agency’s “primary function” should pertain to national security for it to be exempt from legal coverage.
“While the administration does not clearly define its interpretation of ‘primary function,’ its arguments regarding various agencies demonstrate either an overly broad interpretation or a complete disregard of the term,” Friedman concluded. He further criticized the government’s rationale for suggesting that entire agencies should fall under the national security exemption based simply on broad agency missions or specific functions that have minimal national security relevance.
Traditionally, unions face challenges when taking legal action against federal agencies in district courts, as they are mandated to first pursue claims through the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). However, Friedman indicated that the executive order obstructed their ability to seek relief, given that the FLRA does not exercise authority over agencies excluded from the labor statute. Previously, the FLRA has indicated that it would dismiss any complaint submitted by the NTEU regarding the executive order.
“The administrative review process is unavailable to contest the exclusions made by the executive order for the agencies and subdivisions stated within it, as those entities have been removed from the statute’s coverage by the very executive order at issue,” he noted. “A similar attempt to have the FLRA review these issues was made in 2002 under another executive order that also invoked the national security exemption, and the FLRA dismissed that case for lack of jurisdiction.”
Source
www.govexec.com