A federal judge has permanently enjoined the Department of Defense from implementing three significant sections of its proposed new personnel rules which are opposed by organized labor.
Federal District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan declared the new rules, which were to have taken effect on March 1:
? Fail to ensure that employees can bargain collectively;
? Do not meet congressional requirements for independent third party review of labor relations decisions; and
? Set up a process for appealing adverse actions that fails to provide employees with due process and fair treatment as required by statute.
Ronald Ault, president of the AFL-CIO Metal Trades Department, said Judge Sullivan's ruling "affirms our position that national security is an excuse, not a reason for setting up a system of command and control which relegates DOD civilians to the status of less than second class citizenship. Judge Sullivan's ruling ratifies our charges that the National Security Personnel System is an effort to radically undermine the rights of more than 700,000 civilian workers and it is a template for what this White House would like to establish for both private and public sector workers."
Sullivan said DOD has "eviscerated collective bargaining rights" with regulations that are nearly identical to those initially set up by the Department of Homeland Security. Another judge, Judge Rosemary Collyer, ordered those rules scrapped late last year when she determined that they did not require that both parties live up to the terms of agreements.
Sullivan said DOD's rules "establish a labor relations system that fails to provide for collective bargaining." Sullivan also said DOD's design of a so-called "independent" National Security Labor Relations Board (NSLRB) is defective because it would both investigate and adjudicate disputes. He questioned the independence of such a board which would be appointed and serve "at the sole and exclusive discretion" of the Defense Secretary.
DOD's set up of the NSLRB "does not satisfy Congress' requirement for an 'independent third party' to review labor-management disputes," Sullivan found.
Overall, the regulations fail to provide DOD employees with fair treatment?a key requirement of the statute enacted by Congress in November 2003 when it included the National Security Personnel System as part of that year's Defense Authorization Bill.
Sullivan did rule in favor of DOD on two points ? dismissing union charges that DOD failed to collaborate in the development of the rules and that Congress did intend to give DOD the right to depart from significant sections of the basic statute governing labor relations in the federal government.
"[W]hile [DOD] may not have met Congress' requirements with enthusiasm, the Court finds no evidence that the defendants acted in bad faith" and did collaborate, Sullivan wrote, adding: "The Court suspects, however, that more substantive meetings with plaintiffs could have helped defendants void the shortcomings of these regulations in providing for collective bargaining. . ."
Share
A federal judge has permanently enjoined the Department of Defense from implementing three significant sections of its proposed new personnel rules which are opposed by organized labor.
Federal District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan declared the new rules, which were to have taken effect on March 1:
? Fail to ensure that employees can bargain collectively;
? Do not meet congressional requirements for independent third party review of labor relations decisions; and
? Set up a process for appealing adverse actions that fails to provide employees with due process and fair treatment as required by statute.
Ronald Ault, president of the AFL-CIO Metal Trades Department, said Judge Sullivan’s ruling “affirms our position that national security is an excuse, not a reason for setting up a system of command and control which relegates DOD civilians to the status of less than second class citizenship. Judge Sullivan’s ruling ratifies our charges that the National Security Personnel System is an effort to radically undermine the rights of more than 700,000 civilian workers and it is a template for what this White House would like to establish for both private and public sector workers.”
Sullivan said DOD has “eviscerated collective bargaining rights” with regulations that are nearly identical to those initially set up by the Department of Homeland Security. Another judge, Judge Rosemary Collyer, ordered those rules scrapped late last year when she determined that they did not require that both parties live up to the terms of agreements.
Sullivan said DOD’s rules “establish a labor relations system that fails to provide for collective bargaining.” Sullivan also said DOD’s design of a so-called “independent” National Security Labor Relations Board (NSLRB) is defective because it would both investigate and adjudicate disputes. He questioned the independence of such a board which would be appointed and serve “at the sole and exclusive discretion” of the Defense Secretary.
DOD’s set up of the NSLRB “does not satisfy Congress’ requirement for an ‘independent third party’ to review labor-management disputes,” Sullivan found.
Overall, the regulations fail to provide DOD employees with fair treatment?a key requirement of the statute enacted by Congress in November 2003 when it included the National Security Personnel System as part of that year’s Defense Authorization Bill.
Sullivan did rule in favor of DOD on two points ? dismissing union charges that DOD failed to collaborate in the development of the rules and that Congress did intend to give DOD the right to depart from significant sections of the basic statute governing labor relations in the federal government.
“[W]hile [DOD] may not have met Congress’ requirements with enthusiasm, the Court finds no evidence that the defendants acted in bad faith” and did collaborate, Sullivan wrote, adding: “The Court suspects, however, that more substantive meetings with plaintiffs could have helped defendants void the shortcomings of these regulations in providing for collective bargaining. . .”