Supreme Court: Managers must bargain more with unions

Federal managers must bargain with unions over issues not included in formal labor-management contracts, following a Supreme Court ruling Wednesday.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has the power to require federal agencies to bargain with unions outside of formal contract negotiations. The ruling means that agencies must engage in so-called mid-term bargaining, in which unions can initiate discussions during the life of labor contracts over issues not included in the original contracts.

"Congress delegated to the [FLRA] the power to determine whether, when, where and what sort of mid-term bargaining is required," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority.

The FLRA has held since 1987 that agencies must negotiate with unions over issues that the unions raise in between formal agreements. For example, if an agency began moving offices a year after a labor-management agreement had been signed, but the agreement did not include provisions regarding a change in work environment, the union could start a negotiation with the agency about the change. The agency, under the FLRA's position, would have to participate in the negotiation.

The government challenged the FLRA's position, saying that requiring bargaining in between formal agreements would be disruptive to smooth agency operations.

The Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling struck a balance between opposing views held by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C. court held that agencies must engage in mid-term bargaining, while the 4th Circuit Court ruled that such bargaining was not required. The Supreme Court ruled that federal labor relations statutes are ambiguous, leaving the issue up to the FLRA.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court has resolved the disagreement between the circuit courts about what the federal labor statute means, and that the authority's judgment on mid-term bargaining by federal unions prevails," an FLRA spokeswoman said.

Federal managers can still avoid mid-term bargaining by including "zipper clauses" in formal labor-management agreements, which prevent unions from opening up issues in between formal agreements. Unions typically push to exclude zipper clauses from the agreements. In addition, unions cannot demand mid-term bargaining over issues covered in the formal agreements and are limited to bargaining over certain issues under federal labor statutes and case law.

National Treasury Employees Union President Robert Tobias hailed the Supreme Court decision as a "big step toward ensuring equality between labor and management at the bargaining table."

American Federation of Government Employees President Bobby Harnage said the ruling helps prevent managers from trying to make changes to the federal workplace without negotiating with the unions.

"Partnership is an ongoing, constant thing," Harnage said. Labor and management shouldn't just meet once a year, he added. "They have to deal with things as they come up. No one has a crystal ball" for predicting what issues come up over the life of an agreement, Harnage said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the law "does not impose a general duty on agencies to bargain mid-term."

The case is National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1309 v. Department of the Interior et al.