RETURNING TO A WORKABLE 7116(d) FORUM SELECTION ANALYSIS
Among the precedents the two Trump FLRA appointees destroyed was the Authority’s decades-long approach to objectively deciding whether a union can take “two bites at the apple.” This post is about how to get that reversed. The FLRA and courts have held for decades that the union could not use both the FLRA ULP and contract grievance processes to challenge an incident if (1) the ULP charge arose from the same set of factual circumstances as the grievance and (2) the theories advanced in support of both the ULP charge and grievance are substantially similar. The second element of that two-part analysis is reasonably objective. For example, if a union grieves a violation of a contract obligation to distribute overtime equitably and then files a ULP with FLRA charging the agency with unilaterally implementing a change in how it distributes overtime, those are different theories—and therefore previously permissible. It was only where the grievance and ULP both claimed a statutory violation that the union violated 5 USC 7116(d). Continue reading