Photo credit: www.govexec.com
Federal Employee Union Challenges Trump Administration’s Lawsuit
The largest federal employee union in the United States has filed a motion requesting the dismissal of a lawsuit initiated by the Trump administration. This legal action stems from an executive order issued by President Trump that aims to exempt a substantial portion of the federal workforce from certain labor laws under the pretext of national security.
Last month, President Trump invoked a little-used section of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to broaden the scope of the national security exemption, which historically applied mainly to the intelligence sector and specific branches of federal law enforcement.
Surprisingly, the administration filed lawsuits against the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) merely 90 minutes before the executive order was officially published. The AFGE’s case was brought before a Texas court presided over by a judge appointed by Trump, whereas the NTEU’s case was filed in a Kentucky court with judges predominantly appointed by Republican administrations. These lawsuits seek a declaratory judgment that would allow the administration to terminate or disregard collective bargaining agreements at affected federal agencies.
Although federal agencies have been instructed not to invalidate union contracts while these lawsuits are ongoing, they have started to strip employees of their collective bargaining rights. For instance, some agencies have stopped deducting union dues from employee paychecks. Additionally, reports surfaced that the Department of Veterans Affairs has been retaliating against AFGE and other unions for their opposition to the administration’s employment policies, effectively exempting smaller labor organizations from the executive order.
In a recent court filing, the AFGE argued to U.S. District Judge Alan Albright that the government’s lawsuit should be dismissed due to lack of standing, positing that a declaratory judgment would merely serve as an advisory opinion, which federal courts typically do not entertain.
The union stated, “The Declaratory Judgment Act was designed to provide a legal recourse for plaintiffs facing a specific type of injury: the Hobson’s choice of either relinquishing their rights or risking significant liabilities.” They further argued that the administration has not demonstrated any actual or anticipated harm that could be addressed through this declaration.
The administration’s claims of potential harm include disruptions in labor relations, the obligation to comply with union agreements, and the risk of legal actions against the government. However, the union countered that the possibility of labor strife is minimal, citing that federal employees are prohibited from striking, and that the union contracts are valid agreements reached by all parties involved.
The AFGE’s motion emphasized, “Such contractual limitations cannot establish standing since they do not represent imminent injuries nor do they stem from the actions of the defendants.” They noted that these agreements were legally constructed and have been in effect for many years. Furthermore, the union pointed out that, according to the government’s own allegations, these contracts are rendered void under the recent executive order, implying that any purported damages have already been resolved, thus making court intervention unnecessary.
No specific hearing dates have been confirmed for the AFGE case. However, a hearing for the NTEU’s motion for a temporary restraining order against the executive order is scheduled for Wednesday, with a subsequent hearing in the administration’s case against the NTEU occurring on Friday.
Source
www.govexec.com