"When federal agencies began formally implementing the president's two executive orders, which together strip more than two-thirds of the federal workforce of their collective bargaining rights under the auspices of national security, they ceased participating in ongoing union grievance and arbitration processes. Though federal appellate judges have largely allowed the edicts to be implemented while litigation progresses, they have yet to issue a decision on the orders' legality."
"President Trump's effort to cancel that CBA via executive order undermines a bedrock tenet of American law, he wrote. "Every individual who attended law school and took a bar exam understands that a hierarchy of law exists where executive orders, whether issued by governors or presidents, rank below statutes and constitutions," he wrote. "[Clear] and simple, black letter law provides that bargaining rights and obligations contained in a collective bargaining agreement, including grievance arbitration, c"
An independent arbitrator declined to cede jurisdiction over a grievance between a U.S. Air Force base and a union after the Defense Department stopped participating in arbitration. Federal agencies ceased grievance participation while implementing two executive orders that remove collective bargaining rights for much of the federal workforce on national security grounds. Federal appellate courts have allowed implementation of the orders pending litigation but have not ruled on their legality. The arbitrator grounded his authority in the collective bargaining agreement derived from the federal sector labor statute and called the Department's withdrawal unlawful.
Read at Nextgov.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]