Case Study:
United States v. Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization 653 F.2d 1134 (7th Cir. 1981)
PATCO Local No. 316 at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport demanded an upgrade of the airport and a tax-free bonus of $7,500 for each air traffic controller. The Federal Aviation Administration refused to meet the demand. In response, from August 6 to 15, 1980, PATCO conducted a unified slowdown of airport traffic that resulted in several delays. The United States sought an injunction on August 18, 1980, and the action was dismissed. The United States appealed from the district court’s decision holding that only the Federal Labor Relations Authority, not the district court, had the authority to enjoin such a strike.
Swygert, J.
Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was enacted to provide a comprehensive statutory scheme for the regulation of federal labor–management relations. The statute created a new, independent agency, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which was to be primarily responsible for carrying out the purposes of Title VII. When Congress enacted Title VII, it adopted the language of section 19(b)(4) of the Executive Order [Executive Order 11491, as amended, which regulated federal labor–management relations prior to enactment of the Civil Service Reform Act] making it an unfair labor practice for a union “to call, or participate in, a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown.” The reason for Congress’s prohibition of strikes by federal employees was reiterated during the congressional debates on Title VII: The primary reason for Government services is to supply the public with certain essentials of life which cannot reasonably be supplied by the average citizen himself, or to him by private enterprise. Because these services are essential to the health, welfare and safety of the public, it becomes intolerable that they be interrupted. Dismissing or indicting the air traffic controllers involved in the slowdown would not be a viable remedy for the Government. First, terminating a substantial number of controllers would seriously impair the FAA’s ability to provide the public with this essential service; this is precisely the sort of result that the statutory provisions were intended to prevent. Second, indicting or terminating the controllers after a strike does nothing to prevent the strike and the serious consequences that would surely follow. Thus, the only remedy available to the Government that can prevent a strike is an injunction[;] we conclude that an injunction is an available remedy. REVERSED and REMANDED.
Q1. In your opinion, based on the PATCO decision, should public employees have the right to strike?
Q2. Do you agree with Congress’s assessment of why that right is not provided to public employees?
Q3. Given the court’s language about the perils of terminating the air traffic controllers, why do you think President Reagan did so? What would you have done differently, if anything?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.