Latest news with #FederalLaborRelationsAuthority
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Appeals Court Lets Trump Remove Another Democrat From Independent Agency
A federal appeals court cleared the way on Thursday for President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, sidelining her while the White House fights a ruling by a lower court that had reinstated her to the position. The ruling, affecting Susan Tsui Grundmann, echoed those of several other cases in which courts have supported the president in clearing out individuals appointed by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. from institutions that conduct oversight of the government and represent the interests of federal workers. In a brief order, the three-judge panel concluded that the Supreme Court's ruling in May, which involved people serving in similar positions on the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, offered a clear precedent. In those cases, the Supreme Court determined that even though the people Mr. Trump sought to purge were part of a multimember board that was designed by Congress to be nonpartisan and insulated from political pressure, they nonetheless exercise considerable authority. Preventing a president from removing those individuals, even without cause, improperly constrained the president's power to accomplish his agenda, the Supreme Court decided. 'The Supreme Court's reasoning fully applies to the F.L.R.A., which possesses powers substantially similar to those of the N.L.R.B.,' the appeals court panel wrote, comparing the Federal Labor Relations Authority to the National Labor Relations Board. All three of the judges were appointed by Mr. Trump. Ms. Grundmann was confirmed by the Senate in 2022 for a five-year term that would have expired before Mr. Trump was set to leave office. Among the agency's primary duties are helping to resolve labor complaints and addressing issues arising from collective bargaining among federal workers. After receiving notice from the White House that she was being removed from the position in February, Ms. Grundmann filed a lawsuit arguing that she could not be removed from the role without clear cause, citing protections enshrined by Congress. A federal judge in Washington agreed, declaring in June that the firing had been done illegally and ordering that she be reinstated.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US court says Trump can remove Democrat from labor board, for now
By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trumpto remove a Democratic member from a federal labor board while his administration appeals a ruling that said her firing was illegal and had reinstated her. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit paused the lower court decision pending the appeal, saying a law shielding members of the Federal Labor Relations Authority from being removed at will likely violated Trump's broad powers to control the executive branch. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington had ruled otherwise in March and ordered the reinstatement of Susan Tsui Grundmann, who had been fired by Trump a month earlier. The three-member FLRA, which was created by Congress to be independent from the White House, hears disputes between federal agencies and their employees' unions. It can order agencies to bargain with unions and in some cases prevent agencies from firing unionized workers.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals panel temporarily lifts order deeming Trump firing of federal employee labor board head unlawful
A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday temporarily lifted an order deeming President Trump's firing of the Democratic-appointed chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) unlawful. The panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the government's request for an administrative stay, meaning Trump may remove FLRA Chair Susan Grundmann from the post — for now. The FLRA resolves disputes between federal employees and the government. In March, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan rejected the Trump administration's arguments that the removal protections afforded to FLRA members like Grundmann, which are meant to prevent termination without cause, are unconstitutional. The White House did not purport to have cause to fire the FLRA chair when it did so in a two-sentence email earlier this year. Sooknanan effectively reinstated Grundmann for the rest of her term unless an appeals court overturns the ruling. She relied on longstanding Supreme Court precedent in her decision. 'A straightforward reading of Supreme Court precedent thus resolves the merits of this case,' wrote Sooknanan, an appointee of former President Biden. However, legal experts believe that precedent could be in peril, as some of the court's conservatives have signaled a willingness to overturn the Supreme Court's own past ruling. Several other lawsuits have been brought challenging Trump's firings of independent agency members. Last month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump to fire two Democratic-appointed independent agency leaders, for now, over the dissents of the court's three liberal justices. The emergency order lifted a lower decision reinstating the two officials — National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris — which handed Trump a win in his efforts to expand executive control over the federal bureaucracy. The panel ordered Grundmann to file a response to the government's motion for a stay pending appeal by June 23. Any government reply is due June 27. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Appeals panel temporarily lifts order deeming Trump firing of federal employee labor board head unlawful
A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday temporarily lifted an order deeming President Trump's firing of the Democratic-appointed chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) unlawful. The panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the government's request for an administrative stay, meaning Trump may remove FLRA chair Susan Grundmann from the post, for now. The FLRA resolves disputes between federal employees and the government. In March, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan rejected the Trump administration's arguments that the removal protections afforded to FLRA members like Grundmann, which are meant to prevent termination without cause, are unconstitutional. The White House did not purport to have cause to fire the FLRA chair when it did so in a two-sentence email earlier this year. Sooknanan effectively reinstated Grundmann for the rest of her term unless an appeals court overturns the ruling. She relied on longstanding Supreme Court precedent in her decision. 'A straightforward reading of Supreme Court precedent thus resolves the merits of this case,' the judge, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote. However, legal experts believe that precedent could be in peril, as some of the court's conservatives have signaled a willingness to overturn the Supreme Court's own past ruling. Several other lawsuits have been brought challenging Trump's firings of independent agency members. Last month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump to fire two Democratic-appointed independent agency leaders, for now, over the dissents of the court's three liberal justices. The emergency order lifted a lower decision reinstating the two officials — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris — which handed Trump a win in his efforts to expand executive control over the federal bureaucracy. The panel ordered Grundmann to file a response to the government's motion for a stay pending appeal by June 23. Any government reply is due June 27.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service
The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate. Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits. Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse. This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition. Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power. This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service. Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers. Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge. That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts. Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service. This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it. But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient. This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design. Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections. The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires. Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less. Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
