Opinion ID: 584492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Status Quo Ante Relief

Text: 13 An appellate court is particularly deferential when reviewing an administrative agency's choice of remedy. National Treas. Employees Union v. FLRA, 910 F.2d 964, 966-67 (D.C.Cir.1990) (en banc ). In cases such as this one, however, 14 where an agency has taken unilateral action that disturbs the status quo and has illegally refused to give a union an opportunity to bargain over the decision (or its impact), a stronger case can be made for the proposition that the Authority ... should restore the status quo ante in a remedial order.... That does not necessarily mean that the Authority must employ such a remedy as a matter of law, but in such a case it would surely bear the burden of explaining why it did not. 15 Id. at 969. We conclude that the Authority did not provide an adequate explanation for its decision to deny status quo ante relief. 16 In applying the fifth prong of the balancing test, see FCI, 8 FLRA at 606, the Authority reasoned that a 17 drug-related lapse by an employee in a position that is directly related to the operation of the aviation safety and control system can have irreversible and calamitous consequences.... We find that FAA has a particularly urgent need to ensure a drug-free workplace. 18 Order at 31 (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). This finding of a particularly urgent need is not supported by substantial evidence on the record. 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c). Moreover, it is utterly inconsistent with the Authority's conclusion that the FAA committed an unfair labor practice by initiating the program on September 8, 1987, prior to completion of bargaining. The Authority has pointed to no evidence of any change in circumstances since 1987 indicating that pre-implementation bargaining is no longer appropriate. Nor did the Authority justify its decision in other terms. 19 If the Authority should on remand maintain its view that urgent considerations of safety require the continuation of the testing program, it must provide a proper factual basis for its conclusion. The Authority has discretion to distinguish between different job categories--for instance, pilots versus technicians or inspectors--in deciding whether status quo ante relief is appropriate. Cf. National Fed'n of Fed. Employees v. Cheney, 884 F.2d 603, 610-11 (D.C.Cir.1989). The Authority also may consider the possibility, suggested by PASS at oral argument, that a time limit be imposed on the bargaining process.