Opinion ID: 147533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FLRA and the FSIP

Text: The Congress established a distinct regulatory framework for collective bargaining between federal agencies and their employees under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, which was passed as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and codified in Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S.Code. NATCA v. FSIP, 437 F.3d 1256, 1258 (D.C.Cir.2006) [hereinafter NATCA I ]. The Statute grants federal agency employees the right to organize, provides for collective bargaining, and defines various unfair labor practices. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees v. Dep't of Interior, 526 U.S. 86, 88, 119 S.Ct. 1003, 143 L.Ed.2d 171 (1999). The FLRA is primarily responsible for administering the Statute. NATCA I, 437 F.3d at 1258. Much as the National Labor Relations Board does for the private sector, the FLRA determine[s] the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation, conduct[s] elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative and, most relevant here, conduct[s] hearings and resolve[s] complaints of unfair labor practices arising out of negotiations between a federal agency employer and the union that represents its employees. 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2). Except in circumstances not relevant here, a final order issued by the FLRA is reviewable in the court of appeals. Turgeon v. FLRA, 677 F.2d 937, 938 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)). The General Counsel of the FLRA, who serves at the pleasure of the President, has by statute separate authority from that of the FLRA. Turgeon, 677 F.2d at 938 n. 4. Her principal duties are to investigate unfair labor practice charges, issue unfair labor practice complaints arising from those charges, and prosecute those complaints before the FLRA. Id. A union or an employer accusing its counterpart of an unfair labor practice first submits a charge to a Regional Director of the FLRA, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.6(a), who, acting on behalf of the General Counsel, investigates the charge, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.8(a), and decides whether to issue a complaint, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.10(a). If the Regional Director dismisses the charge, then the charging party may appeal that decision to the General Counsel, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.11(c), but the General Counsel's decision whether to issue a complaint is not subject to judicial review, see Turgeon, 677 F.2d at 940. The FSIP, an entity within the FLRA, serves as a forum of last resort in the speedy resolution of disputes between a federal agency and the exclusive representatives of its employees after negotiations have failed. NATCA I, 437 F.3d at 1257-58 (citing Council of Prison Locals v. Brewer, 735 F.2d 1497, 1501 (D.C.Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The FSIP must promptly investigate any impasse presented to it, 5 U.S.C. § 7119(c)(5)(A), and then either (1) Decline to assert jurisdiction ... [for] good cause ... or (2) Assert jurisdiction, 5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a). If the FSIP asserts jurisdiction, then it may ultimately take whatever action is necessary and not inconsistent with [the Statute] to resolve the impasse, 5 U.S.C. § 7119(c)(5)(B)(iii), including binding arbitration, Am. Fed'n. of Gov't Employees v. FLRA, 691 F.2d 565, 569 n. 26 (D.C.Cir.1982); see 5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2)(ii). A decision of the FSIP declining to assert jurisdiction over an impasse is not reviewable `except in extraordinary circumstances,' because `Congress precluded direct judicial review of Panel orders.' NATCA I, 437 F.3d at 1262 (quoting Brewer, 735 F.2d at 1498).