Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. Federal Labor
Relations Authority case brief summary
685 F.2d 547 (1982)
CASE FACTS
Respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority found that petitioner air traffic controllers organization had committed unfair labor practices by striking in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), 5 U.S.C.S. § 7116(b)(7)(A), (B), and revoked petitioner's status as the exclusive bargaining representative of the air traffic controllers pursuant to the CSRA, U.S.C.S. § 7120(f). Petitioner challenged the ruling and sought to block enforcement of the order.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed respondent's order and denied the petition for review, holding that the evidence substantially supported the finding that petitioner had engaged in an illegal strike against the government and finding that there had been no impropriety in the proceedings requiring vacation of respondent's revocation order.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
685 F.2d 547 (1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner air traffic controllers
organization sought to review an order of respondent Federal Labor
Relations Authority finding that petitioner had committed unfair
labor practices in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act, 5
U.S.C.S. § 7116(b)(7)(A), (B), and revoking petitioner's
authority as an exclusive collective bargaining representative.CASE FACTS
Respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority found that petitioner air traffic controllers organization had committed unfair labor practices by striking in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), 5 U.S.C.S. § 7116(b)(7)(A), (B), and revoked petitioner's status as the exclusive bargaining representative of the air traffic controllers pursuant to the CSRA, U.S.C.S. § 7120(f). Petitioner challenged the ruling and sought to block enforcement of the order.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that striking was per se an unfair labor practice for government employees such as the air traffic controllers under the provisions of the CSRA.
- Further, substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner had engaged in such an illegal strike and respondent had had the discretion to deny a continuance requested by petitioner and to revoke petitioner's status as punishment for the illegal strike.
- Finally, no improper ex parte communications had occurred that required vacation of respondent's order.
The court affirmed respondent's order and denied the petition for review, holding that the evidence substantially supported the finding that petitioner had engaged in an illegal strike against the government and finding that there had been no impropriety in the proceedings requiring vacation of respondent's revocation order.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law
Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment