A Federal court judge on Feb. 20 blocked a request from five Federal employee unions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) challenging the Trump administration’s reduction-in-force executive orders and “deferred resignation” program.
In a separate case, a coalition of unions filed a similar complaint in a U.S. district court in California on Feb. 19.
Judge Christopher R. Cooper, a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, said in the Feb. 20 decision that the court “likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction” to grant a TRO and referred the plaintiffs to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
Plaintiffs in the case include the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); the National Federation of Federal Employees; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Workers of America.
Cooper said Congress gives the FLRA authority to oversee the unions’ complaint under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). He also said previous legal precedent undermines the arguments presented by the plaintiffs.
“Although district court review may appear more efficient or convenient to NTEU, it’s preference does not insulate its claims from the FSLMRS review scheme,” Cooper’s decision reads.
The unions argued that the Trump administration’s reductions-in-force orders and “deferred resignation” program violated separation of powers principles and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Cooper said previous legal statutes prevent the court from ruling decisively in the case because the unions’ claims do not avoid preclusion, are not wholly collateral, and are not beyond the expertise of the FLRA. He said that even if the FLRA finds the claims beyond its scope, appeals courts established in the FSLMRS process can intervene.
“Even if the FLRA cannot decide NTEU’s constitutional claims, it is of no dispositive significance whether the agency has the authority to rule on constitutional claims so long as the claims can eventually reach an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate them,” the decision reads.
“Although the FLRA may lack expertise on the constitutional claims, the agency could ‘moot the need to resolve the unions’ constitutional claims’ by finding that the President’s actions violated the RIF statute,” the decision reads.
Not to be deterred, a coalition of unions in California filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its acting director Charles Ezell on Feb. 19 challenging the mass firings of probationary-or recently hired-employees.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); AFGE Local 1216; and United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Healthcare Professionals claim OPM acted beyond its authority in ordering agencies to fire their probationary employees, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutory laws.
“The OPM Program requiring federal agencies to remove probationary employees throughout the federal government unlawfully usurps the legislative authority of Congress and is therefore ultra vires,” the lawsuit reads.
The unions claim that OPM forced agencies to falsely assert that the employees were fired based on performance issues.
“[OPM] certainly has no authority to require agencies to perpetuate a massive fraud on the federal workforce by lying about federal workers’ ‘performance,’ to detriment of those workers, their families, and all those in the public service who rely upon those workers for important services,” the lawsuit reads.
The unions claim they represent probationary employees who have been fired by the recent orders out of OPM.
The lawsuit asks a Federal judge to declare OPM’s firing of probationary employees illegal, stop all terminations of probationary employees, and reinstate probationary employees that have already been fired.
It is unclear if the claims in the lawsuit in California will be upheld as similar arguments have been struck down recently in Federal courts across the country.
“OPM’s actions disrupt the constitutional balance of power and violate numerous federal statutes, running roughshod over fundamental protections against unlawful and arbitrary federal action,” the lawsuit reads.
