N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION, AFL

- CIO,

Petitioner

v.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1748

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator ’ s decision in No.

230711

- NATC by Homer C. La Rue.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before L OURIE

, C UNNINGHAM , and S TARK

, Circuit Judge s

.
L OURIE

, Circuit Judge

.
O R D E R

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL

CIO (“ NATCA ”) filed this petition from the arbitrator’s decision upholding the dismissal of Tyler A. Mack. The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) moves to dismiss the Case: 24-1748 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 08/22/2024NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION v. FAA 2

petition . The union opposes dismissal and moves for leave to join Mr. Mack as a party

.
Mr. Mack was hired as a n air traffic controller specialist trainee on June 24 , 202 1 . According to the Notice of Proposed Removal, Mr. Mack was serving a one

- year probationary period when the agency removed him on June 9,

2022. Mr. Mack’s union , NATCA, filed a grievance challenging the removal , which le d to the union taking the case
to arbitration. On February 26, 2024, the arbitrator issued a decision denying the grievance. On April 24, 2024, NATCA filed a petition at this court seeking review of the
arbitrator’s final decision.

In American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1367 v. Department of the Air Force

, 61 F.4th 952 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“ AFGE” )

, we considered whether a union could appeal an arbitrator’s decision. Based on longstanding precedent and statutory interpretation, we explained that

“ only the employee may appeal the unfavorable arbitration
award

, ” and “unions lack standing to initiate an appeal.”

Id

. at 955 (citing 5 U.S.C. § § 7121(f) and § 7703(a)(1 ) )

. We
also ruled that the employee could not later be substituted
to avoid dismiss al . We explained: “a party may not substitute under Rule 43 (b) [ of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure ] when the original party being substituted lacked standing to initiate the appeal.” Id . at 956.

AFGE compels dismissal here

. NATCA c an not file a petition challenging the arbitrator’s decision

. 1 And w hile

1 NATCA urges the court to find that NATCA can assert the claims of its members because it meets the requirements for associational standing. But this court has repeatedly rejected this argument

. See Reid v. Dep ’ t of
Co m. , 793 F.2d 277, 279

– 8 2 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ; see also AFGE
Local 3438 v. S SA , No. 2021

- 1972, 2022 WL 1653177

, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2022)

. Case: 24-1748 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 08/22/2024NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION v. FAA 3

NATCA here has mo ved to join Mr. Mack, as opposed to
substitut ion

, that distinction makes no difference because
NATCA was never a proper party to file a petition

. 2

Accordingly

,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) FAA’s motion is granted. The petition for review is

dismissed.

(2) NATCA’s motion is denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 22 , 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT

2 We cannot construe the union ’s response and request for joinder of Mr. Mack as a petition for review filed by Mr. Mack. See Fed. R. App. P. 15; Fed. R. App. P. 32(d) (“Every brief, motion, or other paper filed with the court must be signed by the party filing the paper or, if the party is represented, by one of the party’s attorneys. ”). Case: 24-1748 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 08/22/2024