Nat'l Veterans Affairs Council v. Fed. Serv. Impasses Panel
| Decision Date | 10 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00837 (CJN) |
| Parties | NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS COUNCIL, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Matthew M. Collette, Kathryn A. Robinette, Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Noah Barnett Peters, Rebecca Jean Osborne, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Sarah Catherine Blackadar, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Plaintiff National Veterans Affairs Council, a union representing employees of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, brings statutory and constitutional claims against a labor-dispute-resolution body called the Federal Service Impasses Panel. See Compl. ¶¶ 39–54, ECF No. 3. Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims because the statutory scheme channels them through ongoing administrative proceedings first. The Court agrees and therefore grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16 ("Mot. to Dismiss").
The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 – 35 ("Statute"), was enacted under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to "govern[ ] labor relations between federal agencies and their employees," Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 464 U.S. 89, 91, 104 S.Ct. 439, 78 L.Ed.2d 195 (1983). As "part of a comprehensive revision of the laws governing the rights and obligations of civil servants," id. , the Statute "created ‘an integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review.’ " Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors , 560 F.3d 495, 496–97 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In supplanting the previous "haphazard arrangements for administrative and judicial review of personnel action," Congress strove to "balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees" to "organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations" with the needs of "sound and efficient administration." Grosdidier , 560 F.3d at 496–97 (citation omitted); see also 5 U.S.C. § 7101.
The Statute created several entities, including the Federal Labor Relations Authority ("Authority") and its General Counsel. 5 U.S.C. § 7104. The Authority is composed of three members who are to "provide leadership in establishing policies and guidance relating to matters" under the Statute and, among other things, "resolve[ ] issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith" and "conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices." 5 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a), 7105(a). The General Counsel, in turn, is authorized to "investigate alleged unfair labor practices," "file and prosecute complaints," and exercise any other powers directed by the Authority. 5 U.S.C. § 7104(f). The three members and the General Counsel are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of five years. 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b), (f)(1). Members can be removed by the President "only upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," while the General Counsel may be removed by the President at any time. See 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b), (f)(1).
The Statute also codified the Federal Service Impasses Panel ("Panel"), which had been first established by President Nixon in Executive Order 11491. Exec. Order No. 11491, 34 Fed. Reg. 17605 (1969). The Panel is "an entity within the Authority" that is to be "composed of a Chairman and at least six other members, who shall be appointed by the President, solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties and functions involved, from among individuals who are familiar with Government operations and knowledgeable in labor-management relations." 5 U.S.C. § 7119(c)(1), (2). Panel members serve five-year terms and "[a]ny member of the Panel may be removed by the President." Id. § 7119(c)(3).
The Panel is charged with "provid[ing] assistance in resolving negotiation impasses between [a federal] agenc[y] and exclusive representatives" of agency employees. Id. § 7119 (c)(1). It is authorized to consider impasses presented by either party (whether union or agency) and may recommend procedures to resolve impasses or aid the parties by conducting factfinding and offering recommendations. Id. § 7119(c)(5)(A). If the parties are still unable to arrive at a settlement, the Panel can "take whatever action is necessary and not inconsistent with this chapter to resolve the impasse." Id. § 7119(c)(5)(B). The Panel's final actions are binding on the parties unless they agree otherwise. Id. § 7119(c)(5)(C). And failure to cooperate with the Panel or comply with its decisions may constitute an unfair labor practice. Id. § 7116(a)(6), (8), (b)(6), (8).
A Panel decision is not subject to direct review by another entity, including the Authority or a court. Council of Prison Locals v. Howlett , 562 F. Supp. 849, 851 (D.D.C. 1983) (quotation omitted), aff'd sub nom. Council of Prison Locals v. Brewer , 735 F.2d 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1984). But a Panel decision can be reviewed by the Authority (and thereafter by a court of appeals) in one of two ways. First, if a union or agency commits an unfair labor practice, the General Counsel may investigate and issue a complaint. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7104(f)(2), 7118(a). If the General Counsel does so, the Authority is "empowered to exercise its decision-making functions: conduct hearings, decide the merits of a complaint, and issue any appropriate remedial order." Turgeon v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 677 F.2d 937, 938–39 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(G), 7118(a)(6)–(8) ). Authority decisions in those circumstances are reviewable by the appropriate court of appeals. See 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Second, a complaining party may submit an unfair-labor-practice claim to an arbitrator whose decision is subject to review by the Authority, 5 U.S.C.§ 7122(a) ; the Authority's order is then reviewable by the appropriate court of appeals. See 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).
Plaintiff the National Veterans Affair Council, American Federation of Government Employees Council No. 53 (the "Union") is "composed of local unions that collectively represent approximately 350,000 bargaining unit employees employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)." Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 3. The Union and the VA were parties to a collective bargaining agreement with an initial term that expired in 2014 but are currently in an indefinite extension until they reach a new agreement. See id. at ¶ 34. In April 2019, the Parties identified the "ground rules" that would govern their negotiations. Id. ¶ 35. Approximately seven months later, after "multiple declarations that the parties had reached an impasse, ... the VA requested that the Impasses Panel intervene." Id. In March 2020, the Panel asserted jurisdiction over the Union's objection and ordered the Parties to submit statements of their positions and their rebuttal statements by July 5, after which the Panel would take whatever action it deemed necessary to resolve the dispute. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 12.
On March 27, 2020, after the Panel asserted jurisdiction over the claimed impasse, the Union commenced this action against the Panel, its Chairman, and the Authority, alleging that the Panel is improperly constituted, in violation of the Appointments Clause (Count I), the Due Process Clause (Count II), and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Count III). See Compl. ¶¶ 39–54, ECF No. 3. In May, the Union moved for a preliminary injunction, which was later converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 12. The VA intervened as Defendant and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 17. Both Defendants also moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 16. In June, the Court held a telephonic hearing and ordered supplemental briefing on the question of Plaintiff's standing. See Minute Order dated June 25, 2020. On November 5, 2020, the Panel issued its decision in the underlying impasse, Status Report, ECF No. 35; the Court then ordered supplemental briefing on how that action affects this suit. See Minute Order dated January 5, 2021.
Although the Parties have filed summary-judgment motions, the Court will turn first to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16. Courts, of course, "have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists," and if "a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim crosses from conceivable to plausible when it contains factual allegations that, if proved, would ‘allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’ " Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham , 798 F.3d 1119, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (alteration omitted) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). When considering dismissal, this Court must "draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff's favor." Id.
It is well settled that Panel orders "are not directly reviewable in court," Antilles Consol. Educ. Ass'n v. FLRA , 977 F.3d 10, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020), and that the Statute "forecloses the assumption of general federal question or mandamus jurisdiction." Council of Prison...
To continue reading
Request your trial