American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3936, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 239 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2001), reviewing 56 FLRA 174 (2000).
The First Circuit affirmed the Authority's final decision and order finding that in an unfair labor practice proceeding, the Authority lacked jurisdiction over National Guard technician terminations. The court agreed with the Authority "that the plain language of section 709(f)(4) of the Technicians Act categorically precludes review of technician terminations under the Labor-Management Act."
Granite State Chapter, Association of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, 173 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 1999), reviewing 54 FLRA 301 (1998).
The First Circuit affirmed the Authority's determination that an agency's refusal to bargain over a proposal for official time for lobbying did not violate the Statute. The Authority had ruled that the proposal was inconsistent with a prohibition in the Agency's Appropriations Act. The court agreed with the Authority's interpretation of the Appropriations Act and affirmed the Authority's holding that the proposal was inconsistent with federal law and therefore not within the Agency's duty to bargain.
Edward S. Davidson, Regional Director, Boston Region, FLRA v. Puerto Rico National Guard, 156th Airlift Wing, Carolina, Puerto Rico, No. 00-1015 (1st Cir. May 12, 2000)[unpublished decision], vacating and remanding No. 99-1478(PG) (D.P.R. 1999).
The Authority sought review of a district court decision denying temporary injunctive relief in a ULP case. After the Authority issued a final decision on the underlying ULP, the First Circuit, at the Authority's request, vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case to the district court with directions to dismiss the original complaint for injunctive relief as moot.
FLRA v. Puerto Rico National Guard, Puerto Rico Air National Guard, San Juan, Puerto Rico, No. 99-1293 (1st Cir. May 25, 2000)[unpublished decision], enforcing Case No. AT-CA-70505.
The First Circuit granted the Authority's petition for enforcement of an unexcepted-to-ALJ decision finding that the Agency violated the Statute by repudiating an MOU. The court enforced the Authority's order even though the Agency agreed, on the eve of oral argument, to comply. The court stated in this regard that "judicial enforcement will serve as an effective reminder to the respondent of its continuing obligation fully and seasonably to effectuate the terms of the Authority's remedial order."