Homeland Security and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (13 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Feb. 1, 2008 |
| Report Number |
RL33052 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Thomas J. Nicola and Jon O. Shimabukuro, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Aug. 14, 2006 (13 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Aug. 25, 2005 (11 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 grants the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") authority to develop a separate human resources management system for the employees of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). On February 1, 2005, final regulations to define and implement the new system were published in the Federal Register. Shortly after the regulations were issued, the National Treasury Employees Union ("NTEU") and several other labor organizations filed a lawsuit alleging that DHS and OPM exceeded the authority granted to them under the Homeland Security Act. On August 12, 2005, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined parts of the new regulations involving labor-management relations and the Merit Systems Protection Board in NTEU v. Chertoff. The district court on October 7, 2005, denied a motion by DHS and OPM to modify its injunction of labor-management relations regulations. On June 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed some holdings of the district court, reversed others, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. This decision was not appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. On October 17, 2006, the district court modified the August 12, 2005 injunction to comport with the decision of the court of appeals, remanded the case to DHS and OPM, and ordered them to inform the court by mid-2007 whether they plan to revise or abandon the enjoined final labor-management regulations. In March of 2007 DHS announced its intent to implement adverse action and appeal procedures that were not enjoined. The Merit Systems Protection Board in October of that year issued interim regulations with a request for comments to accommodate appeals from DHS. In a status report regarding the enjoined labor-management regulations, the agencies reported to the district court that they had not determined whether to revise or abandon them, but noted that a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 enacted in December of 2007 denied funds to revise them This report provides a summary of the opinions of the district court and court of appeals and subsequent developments.
