Federal Manager's Daily Report

At the USDA's request during the Trump Administration, a Republican majority on the FLRA issued guidance stating that agencies could enforce policies contrary to a labor agreement in a continuance period. Image: Evgenia Parajanian/Shutterstock.com

Overturning the FLRA, a federal court has said that when “continuance” clauses under a labor-management contract are in effect, a federal agency may not impose policies that are contrary to the contract’s terms, nor may an agency conduct a new review of the contract to potentially disapprove it.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in case No. 2020-1400 noted that when a contract agreement is reached, an agency head may review it before it takes effect and may disapprove it on grounds that it conflicts with law. Once a contract is in effect, it added, an agency may not enforce policies that would violate it.

ADVERTISEMENT

At the request of the Agriculture Department during the Trump administration, the FLRA issued guidance saying that once such a clause kicks in, an agency can conduct a new review and may begin to enforce policies that conflict with the agreement. Several federal employee unions appealed and their cases were consolidated.

The court said that such a clause “manifests the parties’ intent to be bound by the terms of their original agreement pending further negotiations” and simply lengthens the term of that contract. It noted that the law allows for review by the agency head when a new agreement is “executed,” saying that “invoking a continuance clause does not execute a new agreement.”

Further, the law forbids employing agencies from enforcing most regulations that conflict with a collective bargaining “agreement” that was “in effect” before the regulation issued. “An extended contract is the same ‘agreement’ that was ‘in effect’ before the extension. And so long as it remains in effect, the employing agency may not enforce new regulations that conflict with it,” the ruling said.

The FLRA ruling at issue was one of its many 2-1 decisions along party lines in favor of management in recent years with a Republican majority on the board, several of which have since been overturned by the appeals court. The board in May changed party control with the confirmation of a Democrat to replace a Republican whose term had expired.

Key Senate Bill Backs 4.6 Percent Raise, Would Ban Future Schedule F

Newly Offered Bills Show Sharply Differing Visions for Federal Workforce

Spending Bill Continues Focus on Retirement Processing, Other Ongoing Issues

Bills Offered on Student Loan Forgiveness, FBI Whistleblower Appeal Rights

Investigation Alone is Not Retaliation, MSPB Says

TSP Accounts Shed $100 Billion this Year; Customer Service Woes Continue

Hearing Highlights Partisan Differences over Telework vs. Onsite Work

Why So Few are Taking Advantage of TSP Mutual Fund Window

See also,

Federal Retirement COLA Count Hits 9 Percent

The Process of Retiring – OPM’s Benefits Determination Process

House Republicans Revive Retirement Benefit-Cutting Proposals

Retiring from a Federal Job – Getting Started

Retiring from a Federal Job: Make Sure Your Agency Gets it Right

2022 Federal Employees Handbook