Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: January 9, 2023
Decided: May 18, 2023
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch

The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on May 18, 2023, that questioned whether the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) was authorized to regulate the labor practices of state militias in addition to those of federal agencies. The court held that the FLRA had jurisdiction over labor disputes of state National Guards because state militias operate as federal agencies.

The case was argued before the supreme court on January 9, 2023, during the court’s October 2022-2023 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether the Ohio National Guard violated federal law when it attempted to end a collective bargaining agreement with its technician employees, and whether the FLRA has jurisdiction over the Guard's labor disputes.
  • The questions presented: "Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, see 5 U.S.C. §7105(g), empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias?"[1]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Federal Labor Relations Authority has authority over labor disputes involving state militias because they operate as federal agencies. The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: The case clarified that the FLRA’s authority to regulate labor disputes extends beyond federal agencies to also include state militias. The court ruled that the FLRA has authority over state militias because they exercise the authority of the Department of Defense, which is an agency covered by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS).

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Technicians employed by the Ohio National Guard function as dual-status employees because their roles constitute "a hybrid, both of federal and state, and of civilian and military strains” and they are "afforded the benefits and rights generally provided for federal employees in the civil service," according to prior court rulings.[2]

    The Ohio National Guard in 2016 issued a memorandum that ended a 45-year collective bargaining agreement with the union representing the Guard's technicians, the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3970, AFL-CIO. The union responded by filing a series of Unfair Labor Practices (ULPs) complaints with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), arguing that the Guard had refused to negotiate in good faith with the union and that its actions violated the technicians' rights under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. An administrative law judge (ALJ) with the FLRA found that the agency had jurisdiction over the Ohio National Guard and that the Guard had violated federal law by attempting to end the collective bargaining agreement.[2]

    The Ohio National Guard appealed the ALJ's decision, arguing in part "that the FLRA cannot regulate state national guards because Congress had not called the militia into service" and "that the FLRA does not have jurisdiction over technician employees," according to court documents. A three-member panel of the FLRA on June 30, 2020, held 2-1 in favor of the ALJ's ruling.[2]

    The Ohio National Guard petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review the FLRA's decision, which a three-judge panel unanimously denied in December 2021. The Guard then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[2]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, see 5 U.S.C. §7105(g), empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias?[3] ”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 9, 2023.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[4]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[5]

    Outcome

    The court ruled 7-2 that the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has jurisdiction to regulate labor disputes regarding state militias. It affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s ruling.

    Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.[6]

    Opinion

    Opinion of the court

    Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court which argued that, for the purposes of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), a state National Guard acts as a federal agency when supervising dual-status technicians. Thomas argued that “when the Guard employs dual-status technicians, it exercises the authority of the Department of Defense,” which is directed by the FSLMRS.[7]

    “ The Guard, when employing dual-status technicians, functions as an agency covered by the Statute. The Statute defines ‘agency’ to include the Department of Defense, one of the enumerated executive Departments in §101. §7103(a)(3); see §§101 and 105. And, each dual-status ‘technician . . . is an employee of the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force,’ 32 U. S. C. §709(e); see also 10 U. S. C. §10216(a)(1)(A). Those Departments, in turn, are components of the Department of Defense. 10 U. S. C. §§111(b)(6) and (8). And, components of covered agencies plainly fall within the Statute’s reach. 5 U. S. C. §§7103(a)(12) (contemplating collective bargaining between 'the representative of an agency’ and ‘the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit in the agency’) and 7112(a) (contemplating the establishment of ‘appropriate’ bargaining units ‘on an agency, plant, installation, functional, or other basis’). Accordingly, when petitioners employ and supervise dual-status technicians, they—like components of an agency—exercise the authority of the Department of Defense, a covered agency.[7][3] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He argued that the FLRA has authority over labor disputes regarding federal agencies, however, he argued that the court does not provide evidence that the Ohio National Guard is a federal agency.[7]

    “ The Court correctly observes that the FLRA’s ability to enter such an order against petitioners ‘turns on whether petitioners are an ‘agency’ for purposes of the’ Federal Service Labor- Management Relations Statute. Ante, at 5; see 5 U. S. C. §7105(g)(3). But the Court stops short of answering that question, holding instead that petitioners ‘act as a federal ‘agency,’' ante, at 1, ‘exercise the authority of’ a covered agency, ante, at 7, and even ‘functio[n] as an agency,’ ante, at 6. Because petitioners are not actually federal agencies, a proposition that the Court does not dispute, the FLRA lacks jurisdiction to enter remedial orders against them.[7][3] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "QP REPORT 21-1454 THE OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL'S DEPT. V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY," October 3, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, "The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority," December 21, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued January 9, 2023
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 9, 2023
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority," accessed May 19, 2023
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Justia, "Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 598 U.S. _ (2023)," accessed May 19, 2023
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Ohio_Adjutant_General’s_Department_v._Federal_Labor_Relations_Authority&oldid=9182482"