A federal judge published a preliminary injunction Blocking the Trump administration to undress employees to the Security Transportation Administration of their collective negotiation rights.
The American district judge Marsha Pechman, appointed by Clinton in the Washington Washington district, concluded that the initiative was aimed at “punishing” the American Federation of Government employees for having challenged policies of the White House labor before the courts. Monday’s decision follows last week oral arguments In the case, which questions the decision of the Secretary of Internal Security, Kristi Noe, Outlaw unions at the airport safety agency.
“The determination of the Noem seems to have been undertaken to punish Afge and its members because AFGE has chosen to postpone the attacks of the Trump administration with federal employment in court,” Pechman wrote. “The first amendment protects against reprisals for having initiated government disputes and public criticism. And the fixed justification for the determination of the NOEM for the termination of the prodigal (collective agreement) exposes the character of reprisals of the decision. ”
Since its creation after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the TSA has had a large discretion to administer its own personnel system. But after years of bad morale and low detention, the agency granted the abbreviated workforce of collective negotiation rights in 2011 and widened these rights in 2022, as well as a new scale of remuneration similar to the general schedule of the federal government.
Pechman found that the decision to prohibit unions with the TSA, coupled with the following decree According to collective negotiations for two-thirds of the federal workforce, constitute illegal reprisals for the discourse of AFGE and other unions in opposition to the policies of the Trump administration.
“As for the animus, there is solid evidence that the determination of the Noem comes from the aversion of the Trump administration for AFGE as a union posting its federal employment policies,” she wrote. “The determination of Noem attacks AFGE by name, indicating the previous determinations and the ABC” only benefited the … AFGE at TSOS costs “. This declaration is poorly responsible for the ABC and highlights direct antipathy towards Afge.
And while the TSA has a wider discretion to manage its own workforce than other federal agencies, Pechman noted that by signing his contract with AFGE last year, the agency lost part of this latitude. Between this fact and the superficial justification of Noem to reverse the processing of unions by the TSA, Pechman declared that the decision violated the Act on the administrative procedure.
“Noem did not explain why collective negotiations threatened the security of the transport system or travelers in America,” wrote Pechman. “Such an explanation is particularly necessary here, taking into account the previous positions taken by the TSA to explain why collective negotiations benefit the overall security of travelers and promotes the security mission exercised by the TSA congress … The determination of the NOEM cannot explain why the conclusions of the previous determinations on the merits of the ABC are no longer valid or that the circumstances have changed.”
Pechman’s decision obliges the TSA to restore its contract with AFGE, in particular the provisions allowing the union to represent workers in collective negotiation negotiations and surveys on staff, as well as what obliges the agency to receive the contributions of the pay checks of employees on behalf of the union. TSA must also resume participation in grievance and arbitration procedures.
AFGE National President Everett Kelley applauded Pechman’s decision on Monday in a statement.
“Today’s court’s decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,” he said. “The preliminary injunction underlines the unconstitutional nature of the DHS attack against the rights of the first amendment of the TSA officers. We remain determined to ensure that the rights and dignity of our members are protected, and we will not decrease from the defense of the rights of our members against the rupture of an illegal union. ”
