FLRA FORCES UNIONS TO WEAPONIZE RATIFICATION VOTES
If an agency does not like a FSIP decision, all it needs do is have the agency head disapprove the agreement. That gives the agency an official platform on which to challenge the legality of what FSIP did. In the meantime, the entire new agreement is put on hold, absent mutual agreement to implement a portion of it. But if a union does not like FSIP-imposed provision, FLRA says it has no way to directly object by getting an FLRA ruling on the legality of the Panel’s action. According to FLRA, the union must refuse to comply with the Panel decision and “hope,” “keep its fingers crossed,” and “pray” that the agency files a ULP against it for doing so. If the agency chooses not to file a ULP, but to unilaterally implement the new agreement with the agency-favorable provision, the union is caught in a nowhere-to-go trap. We say this because FLRA has repeatedly stated, “Only a party that fails or refuses to comply with a Panel order, and is consequently charged with a ULP, may then challenge the Panel’s order.” (DoD, DoDEA and FEA, 73 FLRA 149 (2022)) If the agency complies, there likely are no grounds to file a ULP (5 USC 7116(a)(6)) against to challenge the legality of the FSIP order. Continue reading