A federal judge could soon block the White House’s move to strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman appeared skeptical during a hearing Wednesday of the administration’s arguments that a little-known provision in federal labor law allows it to exclude several agencies from unionization rights because their work is primarily focused on national security. Friedman said the White House’s determinations about the nature of the agencies’ work seem implausible.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order last month purporting to end union contracts and public workers’ rights to collectively bargain with the federal government over their job terms and conditions. But the order relied on the obscure provision to strip rights from workers at a slew of agencies that aren’t typically engaged in military defense, intelligence or diplomacy. Trump’s order covers the departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, among other agencies.
Friedman, a Clinton appointee, added that Trump’s own words suggest that the true motivation was retaliation against groups that are uncooperative with his agenda, such as the National Treasury Employees Union, which sued over Trump’s order.
“This president sometimes chooses to explain stuff, and he did so in this case,” Friedman said, quoting a White House fact sheet that accompanied the EO. He stressed portions that say the civil service laws “enable hostile unions to obstruct” the federal agenda, and that “Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him.”
“So, he’s willing to be kind to those that work with him, but those that have sued him, those that have filed grievances, those that have complained against him, he’s not going to bargain with,” Friedman said. “I mean how else can you read what he’s done?”
The judge signaled he will likely grant the union’s request for a preliminary injunction, saying he also intends to issue his decision “as quickly as possible.”
The government is arguing in the case that Trump’s power to determine which agencies are exempt from the civil service laws cannot be reviewed by the courts — although Friedman appeared to reject that position.
Justice Department attorneys added that the court shouldn’t block the EO because the unions are not facing immediate, irreversible harm. The unions have said that the government is currently refusing to bargain with them and has already terminated ongoing administrative cases over workplace complaints. They added that they will lose two-thirds of their members and more than $25 million in dues over the next year if the court doesn’t act soon.
Attorneys representing NTEU mentioned that the Trump administration, after issuing the EO, immediately sued an NTEU-affiliate union in Kentucky and Texas — federal districts dominated by Republican appointees.
Shortly after Friedman’s hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, who is hearing the government’s case in Kentucky, denied a request from a local NTEU chapter to postpone oral arguments that are scheduled for Friday. Reeves is an appointee of President George W. Bush. A decision in those cases could affect the NTEU’s lawsuit before Friedman.