Legal battle erupts over organizing airport screeners

A legal battle is being waged over whether privately employed airport screeners should have collective bargaining rights. But some say the case has much broader implications because its outcome could affect anyone working in the area of homeland security.

At issue is whether passenger and baggage screeners at Kansas City International Airport in Missouri can unionize and have collective bargaining rights. The workers are employed by Firstline Transportation Security Inc. of Ohio.

The workers voted earlier this year on whether they wanted to be represented by the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America. The votes have not been counted, however, because Firstline asked the National Labor Relations Board to review whether the workers could hold an election.

The board is evaluating whether it has jurisdiction over the matter. Within the last few weeks, it has been flooded with a series of legal briefs from unions, a congressman and an anti-union organization.

"This is a precedent-setting case," said Steve Maritas, SPFPA's director of organizing. "This ruling could really change a whole industry."

A favorable ruling for the employees would open the door for more national security workers to organize, Maritas said. An adverse decision could cause private companies to argue that any workers doing homeland security jobs should not have collective bargaining rights.

SPFPA argues in its legal brief that NLRB has jurisdiction over the case and should certify the election.

The case also comes at a time when the federal government is ready to let private companies take over screening operations at airports across the country.

Congress created the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11 to manage screening operations at the nation's airports. TSA moved quickly to hire about 45,000 federal screeners.

But Congress allowed five airports to use screeners employed by private companies as part of a pilot program. Those airports are in Kansas City; San Francisco; Rochester, N.Y.; Tupelo, Miss.; and Jackson, Wyo. The privately employed workers are not considered federal employees.

Congress also required TSA to develop a program that would allow airports to apply to TSA to have private companies take over screening operations. TSA launched the program last year and plans to sign the first contracts this fall.

Unions have been trying to organize airport screeners since TSA was created. Former TSA director James Loy issued a directive in 2003, however, that TSA screeners are prohibited from having collective bargaining rights under the 2001 Aviation and Transportation Security Act. In other words, TSA screeners can form or join unions, but they cannot have bargaining rights.

TSA spokeswoman Deirdre O'Sullivan said the directive only applies to federal screeners, not to those employed by private companies. TSA filed a brief with the NLRB, saying the law does not prohibit privately employed screeners from engaging in collective bargaining. The brief also said TSA does not have a position on whether the board has jurisdiction over the Kansas City airport screeners.

"TSA has not taken a position on the issue because they are not federal employees; they are employees of a private company," O'Sullivan said.

The law, however, prohibits airport screeners from striking, regardless of whether they are federal employees or privately employed.

TSA's brief was met with immediate objection by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The organization says its mission is to provide free legal aid "to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by abuses of compulsory unionism."

The foundation filed its own brief with the board and sent President Bush a letter this week urging him to direct TSA to revise its position.

"TSA-employed screeners and privately employed screeners perform the same critical national security functions," the letter said. "It is illogical for the TSA to bar union officials from monopoly bargaining for their screeners and then to permit them to engage in monopoly bargaining over privately employed screeners. If union control of TSA employees would endanger the nation's safety, then such control of private screeners would endanger the nation's safety to the same extent."

The foundation argues, among other things, that unions might be infiltrated by terrorists. The brief references union activity in the 1940s and 1950s - a time of intense anti-communism and McCarthyism in the United States.

Firstline argues in its brief that the act prevents the NLRB from having jurisdiction in the case. The company also said the panel should decline to hear the case in the interest of national security.

The legal proceedings could take more than a year to resolve, Maritas said.

"All this is is a union-busting delay tactic," he said. "All they're doing is jamming it up for some time."

The union is prepared to take further steps if necessary. "One way or another," Maritas said, "we're going to have to take action. If we should lose, we'll look to overturn it in federal court."