Case Study:
EDWARDS, C. J.… Federal employees have long been forbidden from striking against their employer, the federal government, and thereby denying their services to the public at large. The United States Code presently prohibits a person who “participates in a strike … against the Government of the United States” from accepting or holding a position in the federal government, 5 U.S.C. § 311(2) (1976), and violation of this section is a criminal offense, 18 U.S.C. § 1918(3) (1976). Newly hired federal employees are required to execute an affidavit attesting that they have not struck and will not strike against the government, 5 U.S.C. § 3333(a) (1976). In addition, since the inception of formal collective bargaining between federal employee unions and the federal government, unions have been required to disavow the strike as an economic weapon. Since 1969, striking has been expressly designated a union unfair labor practice. In 1978, Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act, Title VII of which provides the first statutory basis for collective bargaining between the federal government and employee unions. Title VII in no way reduced the existing legal proscriptions against strikes by federal employees and unions representing employees in the federal service. Rather, the Act added a new provision applicable to federal employee unions that strike against the government. Under section 7120(f) of Title VII, Congress provided that the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA” or “Authority”) shall “revoke the exclusive recognition status” of a recognized union, or “take any other appropriate disciplinary action” against any labor organization, where it is found that the union has called, participated in or condoned a strike, work stoppage or slowdown against a federal agency in a labor management dispute. 5 U.S.C. § 7120(f) (Supp. IV 1980). In this case we review the first application of section 7120(f) of the FLRA. After the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (“PATCO”) called a nationwide strike of air traffic controllers against the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) in the summer of 1981, the Authority revoked PATCO’s status as exclusive bargaining representative for the controllers. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the Authority.
I. Background A. The PATCO Strike The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization has been the recognized exclusive bargaining representative for air traffic controllers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration since the early 1970’s. Faced with the expiration of an existing collective bargaining agreement, PATCO and the FAA began negotiations for a new contract in early 1981. A tentative agreement was reached in June, but was overwhelmingly rejected by the PATCO rank and file. Following this rejection, negotiations begin again in late July. PATCO announced a strike deadline of Monday, August 3, 1981. Failing to reach a satisfactory accord, PATCO struck the FAA on the morning of August 3. Over 70 percent of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers walked off the job, significantly reducing the number of private and commercial flights in the United States.* In prompt response to the PATCO job actions, the government obtained restraining orders against the strike, and then civil and criminal contempt citations when the restraining orders were not heeded. The government also fired some 11,000 striking air traffic controllers who did not return to work by 11:00 AM on August 5, 1981.** In addition, on August 3, 1981, the FAA filed an unfair labor practice charge against PATCO with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. On the same day, an FLRA Regional Director issued a complaint on the unfair labor practice charge, alleging strike activity prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7) (Supp. IV 1980) and seeking revocation of PATCO’s certification under the Civil Service Reform Act. The complaint noticed a hearing for one week later, August 10, 1981. B. Federal Labor Relations Authority Proceedings John H. Fenton, Chief Administrative Law Judge of the FLRA, conducted hearings on the unfair labor practice charge on the afternoon of August 10. The general counsel of the FLRA presented testimony establishing that on the morning of August 3 pickets assembled at entrances to Air Traffic Control Centers in Leesburg, Virginia, Chicago, Illinois, Ronkonkoma, New York, and Longmont, Colorado, and at the Airport Tower in Atlanta, Georgia. In each instance, the picketers carried signs that informed the public that they were air traffic controllers belonging to a particular PATCO Local and that PATCO was on strike. Attendance records presented by FAA witnesses indicated that only 2,308 of the 9,034 air traffic controllers scheduled to work nationwide on August 3 actually reported. FAA officials from the various facilities also identified striking air traffic controllers, including PATCO Local officers, in photographs of the picketing outside of the Air Traffic Control Centers. In several cases the persons identified, including the PATCO Local officers, were scheduled to work at the time the photographs were taken. In addition to this evidence, an FAA official identified PATCO National President Robert E. Poli in two videotaped news conferences. In one videotape Mr. Poli was recorded as stating: If we have not received a settlement proposal which our negotiating team determines should be offered to the membership, I will order the count to begin. After the tallying has been completed and following verification of the necessary support, the strike will begin on the day shift on Monday, August the 3rd. In the second videotape, apparently made after the strike had begun and after a temporary restraining order had been issued, Mr. Poli was recorded as saying: “The question is will the strike continue. The answer is yes.” In response, PATCO offered no evidence to suggest that a strike had not occurred, to substantiate its assertion that the FLRA’s evidence only demonstrated a number of separate strikes by PATCO Locals, or to establish that PATCO had made any efforts to prevent or stop the strike…. II. PATCO’s Violation of the Ban on Federal Employer Strikes … We conclude that section 7120(f) entrusts the Federal Labor Relations Authority with extensive authority to remedy illegal strikes, work stoppages and slowdowns by federal employee unions. The section clearly permits the FLRA to employ the extreme measure of revoking a union’s exclusive recognition status—a remedy unknown to private sector labor law—if the union commits or condones any of these unfair labor practices…. The FLRA’s Exercise of Its Discretion We have concluded that the FLRA has substantial discretion under section 7120(f) to decide whether or not to revoke the exclusive recognition status of a union found guilty by the FLRA of striking or condoning a strike against the government. A concomitant of this conclusion is that the courts have only a limited role in reviewing the FLRA’s exercise of its remedial discretion…. … The FLRA’s decision to revoke PATCO’s exclusive recognition status was not an abuse of discretion. The union is a repeat offender that has willfully ignored statutory proscriptions and judicial injunctions. It has shown little or no likelihood of abiding by the legal requirements of labormanagement relations in the federal sector. If the extreme remedy that Congress enacted cannot properly be applied to this case, we doubt that it could ever properly be invoked…. Affirmed.
Q1. Summarize the evidence supporting the finding by the FLRA that the air traffic controllers national union participated in a strike in violation of Section 7116(b)(7).
Q2. Was revocation of PATCO’s certification required by Section 7120(f) of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act?
Q3. What effect does revocation of a union’s “exclusive recognition status” have on the viability of a union?
Q4. Did the FLRA abuse its discretion in this case?
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.