Role of FSIP still in limbo
On Feb. 17, a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a trial court's refusal to hear NATCA's lawsuit against the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP).
The appeals court's decision is the latest legal development stemming from the FSIP's refusal to resolve a bargaining impasse in negotiations for a multi-unit contract between NATCA and the FAA in January 2004. The FSIP's refusal to resolve the impasse came after the agency asserted in a brief that the 1996 FAA personnel reform statute divested the panel of jurisdiction for dispute resolution involving compensation and benefits. Without accepting or rejecting the FAA's assertion, the FSIP informed the parties it needed the question of its jurisdiction resolved by an appropriate forum. NATCA filed a lawsuit at the beginning of 2004 asking a federal trial court to declare that the FSIP retained jurisdiction to resolve all bargaining impasses between the union and the agency and to order the FSIP to resolve the pending impasse.
In February 2005, the federal trial court issued a decision dismissing the union's lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. Without reaching the merits of the underlying issue (whether the FSIP has jurisdiction for the resolution of bargaining impasses over compensation and benefits in light of the personnel reform legislation), the trial court merely determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue and therefore was not the appropriate forum for resolution of the statutory construction question raised by the union. The union strongly disagreed with the trial court's conclusion and its impact on the role of the FSIP and filed an immediate appeal.
In its decision rejecting the appeal, the appeals court concluded that, if the union's legal arguments were correct, the FAA's challenge to the FSIP's role in resolving the bargaining impasse constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain that the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) should review. The appeals court thus affirmed the trial court's holding that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute and directed the union to seek redress from the FLRA.
We disagree with the federal courts' refusal to assert jurisdiction over this case and are disappointed by this decision," NATCA's General Counsel Marguerite Graf said. "This case raises questions concerning the interpretation of personnel reform legislation contained in Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and the FLRA is only empowered to interpret its enabling legislation contained in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. It was and remains the union's belief that the federal courts are the only appropriate forum for the resolution of such matters involving interpretation of different parts of the Code. NATCA is now engaged in a review of all of its legal options for further resolution of this matter."
