A federal judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from killing a collective bargaining agreement for Transportation Safety Administration workers.
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle said in her order that an injunction is needed to preserve the rights and benefits that TSA workers have enjoyed for years while being represented by the American Federation of Government Employees.
In their lawsuit, Pechman said, the union has shown that Noem’s directive to end the agreement “constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration’s assault on federal workers.” It also likely violated due process and AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Noem’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” she added.
“Today’s court decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a release. “The preliminary injunction underscores the unconstitutional nature of DHS’s attack on TSA officers’ First Amendment rights. We remain committed to ensuring our members’ rights and dignity are protected, and we will not back down from defending our members’ rights against unlawful union busting.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis declined to comment on the judge’s ruling, according to Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office.
AFGE had entered into a new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement with agency last May, but Noem issued a memo Feb. 27 rescinding that agreement. One week later, TSA informed the union about Noem’s directive, saying the contract was terminated and all pending grievances would be deleted.
AFGE filed a lawsuit against Noem, claiming the move was retaliation against the union for pushing back against the Trump administration’s attacks on federal workers. AFGE had filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 19 against the Office of Personnel Management to stop the firing of probationary workers. A judge issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 27 stopping the firings — the same day Noem issued her memo.
Abigail Carter, representing AFGE during oral arguments before Pechman on May 27, said Noem’s move was retaliation and a violation of the union’s First Amendment right to protected speech and its Fifth Amendment right to due process.
“The administration has made it clear that if you don’t disagree with it politically, you and your members can keep your rights, but if you do disagree, you lose them,” Carter said. She also argued that the collective bargaining agreement was necessary because TSA workers are not covered under the federal labor-management code. The agreement protects them from dangerous working conditions and unreasonable hours.
Kipnis denied the retaliation claim and said it was simply a difference in management styles.
Pechman questioned that contention. Not all unions are banned by the administration, Pechman said, only the ones oppose the administration.
“Isn’t this a pattern that you see?” Pechman asked Kipnis. “Attorneys who take opposition stances get banned. Those who don’t, don’t have those restrictions. Isn’t this the pattern that the White House has set up?”
Kipnis said tension between unions and management are common and this conflict doesn’t signal a violation of the workers’ First Amendment rights, but instead reflects a confrontational relationship.
But Pechman wasn’t convinced.
Previous TSA managers have found unions to be beneficial and renewed their contracts for years, she said. They found they made a happier workforce, and “they wanted their employees to feel that they were well-treated,” she said. What has changed is this administration’s attitude, she said.
To that, Kipnis replied: “Or you could characterize it as a different management style. The former administration apparently saw that as a better way to do business. … But this administration sees a different way of doing business. And the same statute affords them the same amount of discretion.”
Pechman said she understood that the administration has the right to exercise that discretion, “but to abruptly cancel doesn’t seem well reasoned, so I’m having trouble with that.” She also noted, “But why the United States gets to back out of contracts that it’s made is harder to accept.”
In Monday’s order, Pechman said TSA workers would suffer “irreparable harm” without the injunction, noting that if they lose their collective bargaining agreement, they will lose the benefits it provides.
“While the loss of money alone does not show irreparable harm, the total harms here are more than monetary,” Pechman said. “They include the loss of substantive employment protections, avenues of grievance and arbitration, and the right to have a workforce that can unite to demand benefits that might not be obtainable through individual negotiation.”
