Agencies may disregard union agreements on remote work, according to OPM assertions
The Trump administration's recent actions on union contracts and telework policies have sparked a wave of legal challenges, with critics arguing that the administration is attempting to provoke a fight.
In a move that has raised eyebrows, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has instructed agencies to unilaterally repudiate provisions in workforce collective bargaining agreements (CBA) governing telework. This action, according to some, conflicts with federal labor law, which states that agencies must wait until previously agreed upon reopener dates to implement policies issued via executive order, new regulations, or guidance memos.
The federal court system has not provided relief to unions regarding anti-union executive orders issued in 2018. Meanwhile, the FLRA's unfair labor practice process has been hamstrung due to the lack of a Senate-confirmed general counsel for eight years. This has made it more difficult for unions to challenge the OPM's actions.
The OPM's memo states that provisions that require agencies to provide minimum telework levels, or prevent agencies from setting maximum telework levels, are likely unlawful. Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell argues that the "substantive amount" of and eligibility for telework is a management right, and thus non-negotiable within the context of union bargaining.
However, Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, cites federal law stating that the enforcement of a presidential policy or regulation that conflicts with a union contract constitutes an unfair labor practice. Suzanne Summerlin, an independent labor attorney, also states that the memo disregards basic definitions of terms outlined in federal labor law.
Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, warns that the Trump administration is seeking to set a precedent to erase other union contract provisions on a unilateral basis. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National President Everett Kelley echoes this sentiment, stating that the union will not acquiesce to the administration's effort to skirt federal labor law.
In the past, unions have found a workaround by alleging unfair labor practices as part of the arbitrated grievance process. However, the timeframe for a decision is much longer through this process than through the FLRA's unfair labor practice process. This could potentially allow the administration to make significant changes before any legal challenges are resolved.
Officials are inviting legal challenges by targeting basic processes and practices inside government to which they object. Provisions in collective bargaining agreements that conflict with management rights are considered unlawful and cannot be enforced, according to the memo. This could potentially set a dangerous precedent, where the administration can make changes to union contracts without proper negotiation or legal oversight.
As the legal challenges to the OPM's actions unfold, it remains to be seen how the courts will rule on the matter. However, one thing is clear: the Trump administration is attempting to push the boundaries of federal labor law in its efforts to reshape the role of unions in government.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
