A U.S. District judge has rebuffed an effort by labor unions representing federal workers to block President Donald Trump’s layoffs of federal employees.
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 Agriculture Implement Workers of America employees sued Trump on February 12, claiming that Trump’s executive actions laying off workers violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles “because they undermine Congress’ authority to set and fund the missions of federal agencies.” They demanded a temporary restraining order.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that his court would deny the unions the relief they sought because it “likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims.” He added, “The claims must instead be brought before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.”
The FLRA is a three-member agency responsible for handling federal labor disputes. “The FLRA is an independent administrative federal agency that administers the labor-management relations program for 2.1 million non-postal federal employees worldwide,” the agency notes on its website.
PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40
“NTEU contends that no meaningful judicial review is available to it because it will suffer irremediable financial harm and loss of bargaining power in the interim,” Cooper noted. “But NTEU will be able to seek ‘meaningful review,’ as the D.C. Circuit has interpreted it, via the statutory scheme.”
“NTEU appears to suggest that the constitutional challenges it brings are not of the type appropriately resolved under the statutory scheme,” he continued. “But absent any challenge to the very FLRA procedures it wishes to circumvent, NTEU’s constitutional claims do not defeat preclusion.”
“NTEU argues that the firings at issue are so numerous that they will overwhelm the FLRA, thereby foreclosing, or at least forestalling, any meaningful review,” he wrote. “But NTEU provides no reason why it could not seek relief from the FLRA on behalf of a class of plaintiffs and admits that it would ask other agencies to follow an administrative judge’s ruling in its favor.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied,” he concluded.
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
A U.S. District judge has rebuffed an effort by labor unions representing federal workers to block President Donald Trump’s layoffs of federal employees.
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 Agriculture Implement Workers of America employees sued Trump on February 12, claiming that Trump’s executive actions laying off workers violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles “because they undermine Congress’ authority to set and fund the missions of federal agencies.” They demanded a temporary restraining order.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that his court would deny the unions the relief they sought because it “likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims.” He added, “The claims must instead be brought before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.”
The FLRA is a three-member agency responsible for handling federal labor disputes. “The FLRA is an independent administrative federal agency that administers the labor-management relations program for 2.1 million non-postal federal employees worldwide,” the agency notes on its website.
PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40
“NTEU contends that no meaningful judicial review is available to it because it will suffer irremediable financial harm and loss of bargaining power in the interim,” Cooper noted. “But NTEU will be able to seek ‘meaningful review,’ as the D.C. Circuit has interpreted it, via the statutory scheme.”
“NTEU appears to suggest that the constitutional challenges it brings are not of the type appropriately resolved under the statutory scheme,” he continued. “But absent any challenge to the very FLRA procedures it wishes to circumvent, NTEU’s constitutional claims do not defeat preclusion.”
“NTEU argues that the firings at issue are so numerous that they will overwhelm the FLRA, thereby foreclosing, or at least forestalling, any meaningful review,” he wrote. “But NTEU provides no reason why it could not seek relief from the FLRA on behalf of a class of plaintiffs and admits that it would ask other agencies to follow an administrative judge’s ruling in its favor.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied,” he concluded.
“}]]
