National Ass'n of Government Employees, Inc. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Docket: Nos. 98-1313, 98-1317 and 98-1377
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; June 25, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioners, labor unions representing federal employees, challenged decisions by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) that three federal agencies did not engage in unfair labor practices by refusing to negotiate concerning matters outlined in section 7106(b)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). The unions argued that section 2(d) of Executive Order 12871 mandated negotiation over these matters, but the court affirmed the FLRA's conclusion that this section did not constitute an election to bargain. The ruling denies the unions' petitions for review, affirming that the agencies—Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of the Air Force—are required to bargain over collective labor issues, except for certain management rights as outlined in 5 U.S.C. 7106. Executive Order 12871, issued on October 1, 1993, aimed to enhance labor-management relations and mandates agency heads to negotiate over subjects in 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(1), with the stipulation that it does not create any enforceable rights against the United States. Following this, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidance indicating that bargaining on these subjects is now mandatory, and disputes should be resolved through mediation or arbitration if necessary.
Following the issuance of the Guidance, three respondent agencies declined to negotiate on specific management rights issues, leading NAGE and POPA to file unfair labor charges. Administrative law judges (ALJs) ruled that, except for one instance, the agencies did not commit unfair labor practices by refusing to negotiate on section 7106(b)(1) issues, determining that EO 12871 did not represent a section 7106(b)(1) election. NAGE and POPA filed exceptions to these rulings. On November 17, 1997, the FLRA found that the PTO had refused to negotiate a section 7106(b)(1) issue but ruled that the record was insufficient to ascertain whether EO 12871 constituted an election, deferring the issue for further submissions. After reviewing these submissions, the FLRA concluded in 1998 that EO 12871 did not effectuate an election to negotiate on section 7106(b)(1) issues, affirming that PTO's refusal to negotiate was not an unfair labor practice. Subsequently, the FLRA also dismissed NAGE’s claims against the Air Force and Veterans Affairs based on this decision. NAGE and POPA then sought judicial review, with the respondent agencies intervening. The court noted that while the FLRA is granted deference in applying the Act's provisions, it does not extend such deference to the FLRA's interpretation of statutes or regulations beyond its purview. The court determined that the FLRA's decision involved interpreting EO 12871 rather than the FSLMRS, thereby warranting a de novo review. The court clarified that the mandatory language in section 2(d) of EO 12871 does not equate to a section 7106(b)(1) election, emphasizing that the EO directs agency heads to negotiate rather than suggesting the President is electing to negotiate.
The distinction between a presidential order and the authority of agency officials is significant; an order from the President, such as directing the Secretary of State to terminate an employee, does not accomplish the termination itself, as only the Secretary can execute that action. This principle is supported by NTEU v. Reagan, which clarifies the limits of presidential authority. Contrary to NAGE’s arguments, an agency's compliance with an Executive Order (EO) does not introduce absurdity in statutory coverage, as insubordinate agencies remain subject to enforcement actions from the Executive Branch, which may include persuasion or termination of non-compliant officials. The President retains the authority to enforce control over the Executive Branch, but EO 12871 is interpreted as a directive rather than a legally binding mandate enforceable through judicial proceedings. Section 2(d) of EO 12871 indicates that it is intended solely for internal management improvement and does not grant rights to administrative or judicial review. Consequently, EO 12871 is not viewed as a section 7106(b)(1) election, leading to the denial of the petitions for review regarding its enforceability. The relevant provisions of the Federal Labor Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 7106) affirm agency management rights regarding employee management and negotiations with labor organizations.
Heads of agencies under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S. Code are required to establish labor-management partnerships by creating or adapting labor-management committees. These partnerships should involve employees and their union representatives to collaboratively address issues and improve service delivery. Agencies must provide systematic training in dispute resolution methods to relevant employees, negotiate on specific subjects outlined in 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(1), and assess the effectiveness of these partnerships in enhancing organizational performance.
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) failed to negotiate on hiring practices for computer science patent examiners, while the Air Force and Veterans Affairs made personnel decisions without negotiations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that PTO engaged in unfair labor practices by not negotiating the hiring of new patent examiners, a ruling affirmed by the Authority, with no appeal from PTO. Several organizations, including OPM and various unions, submitted amicus briefs, with only the American Federation of Government Employees participating in the current proceedings. Petitioners argue that OPM’s guidance indicates the Executive Order (EO) initiated an election, but this guidance does not override the clear language of the EO. Judicial interpretation is limited when statutory terms are unambiguous, barring exceptional circumstances.
