Trump administration lacks legal basis to enforce anti-union executive order, union argues
The Trump administration has taken a bold step in challenging the collective bargaining agreements of federal unions, sparking a series of legal battles. In a move that seemingly acknowledges retaliation, the Veterans Affairs Department has admitted to targeting the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unions for their efforts to block administration workforce policies.
The White House is seeking a declarative judgment affirming the administration's legal right to rescind or repudiate collective bargaining agreements at affected agencies. This move comes as the Declarative Judgment Act was enacted to provide a judicial pathway for cases where a plaintiff faces a specific kind of injury.
However, the union argues that the administration lacks standing in the lawsuit as it has alleged no ongoing or prospective liability. Union contracts, they claim, are legal documents willingly agreed to by federal agencies, and they cannot confer standing because they are not imminent injuries.
In a court filing Monday, AFGE urged U.S. District Judge Alan Albright to dismiss the case, arguing that a declarative judgment would amount to an advisory opinion, which is barred in federal courts. The union further states that any harm derived from union contracts has already been remedied due to President Trump's executive order.
Meanwhile, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) has also found itself in the crosshairs of the administration. The administration has sued both NTEU and AFGE, with the former facing a hearing for its motion for a temporary restraining order scheduled for Wednesday, and the latter's hearing yet to be set.
The legal battles stem from President Trump's 2018 executive order, which cited a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act to exempt wide swathes of the federal government from federal labor law. Prior to this edict, the CSRA's national security exemption had only been used for the intelligence community and some pockets of federal law enforcement.
The administration alleges three potential harms: labor strife, having to abide by union contracts, and potential litigation against the government. However, federal workers are banned from striking, so the threat of labor strife is minimal. Officials have taken steps to strip employees at impacted agencies of their collective bargaining rights, such as ceasing the collection of union dues from employees' paychecks.
Despite the ongoing legal battles, there is no information available about the date of the hearing for AFGE's application for interim legal protection against the government's constitutional complaint. The administration's case against NTEU is scheduled for a hearing on Friday.
As the legal battles unfold, the future of collective bargaining in the federal sector remains uncertain, with potential implications for millions of federal workers.
