In a major victory for our union and members, a congressional attempt to strip 32,000 National Guard dual-status technicians of collective bargaining rights and workplace protection did not advance in the House of Representatives during consideration of the annual defense authorization bill.
An amendment offered by Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., to the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act would have reclassified National Guard dual-status technicians as military personnel, not federal civilian employees. Under the Austin Scott amendment, the dual-status technicians would be employees of the National Guard under the authority of the governors, not the civil service. That would mean the loss of collective bargaining rights for the technicians.
The amendment, however, was not voted on because of AFGE’s active outreach to House members of both parties explaining the reasons for its strong opposition.
The amendment would have effectively reversed the ruling of the Supreme Court which last year found that dual status technicians are more civilian than military. The highest court’s decision affirmed that dual status technicians, even though they serve in the National Guard, are DoD civilian employees entitled to Title 5 collective bargaining rights.
“Our members would have lost their workplace protections if the amendment had been adopted,” said AFGE Legislative Director Julie Tippens.
Why was there an attempt to take away the technicians’ workplace rights?
In 2016, the Ohio National Guard unilaterally ended a collective bargaining agreement with AFGE Local 3970 when its contract expired. Despite a more than 40-year history of bargaining with AFGE and its dual status technicians, Ohio claimed that technicians had no collective bargaining rights and that it was not bound by the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS).
AFGE subsequently filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), in which Ohio claimed the Guard was not an “agency” and so the FLRA had no jurisdiction over it.
AFGE argued that the statutes governing civilian technicians are unique in creating a group of employees – dual status technicians – who are federal employees with collective bargaining rights but who are subject to hiring, day-to-day supervision, and firing by an adjutant general, who is a state entity for other purposes unrelated to technicians’ civilian conditions of employment.
In the first victory for AFGE, the administrative law judge ruled that the FLRA had jurisdiction over the matter, that dual-status technicians had collective bargaining rights, and that the Guard’s action in ending the bargaining agreement violated the FSLMRS.
The Ohio National Guard appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which rejected its argument. The Guard subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, in which AFGE Deputy General Counsel for Litigation Andres Grajales and Assistant General Counsel Matt Milledge argued for AFGE.
The Supreme Court in May last year ruled that the FLRA has jurisdiction over labor disputes between the dual-status technicians and the National Guards, saying the state National Guard “acts as a federal agency for purposes of the [Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute] when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.”
AFGE represents more than 32,000 National Guard dual-status technicians in every state except Mississippi.
The Office of Personnel Management last week took a huge step toward aligning the locality pay maps for employees on the Federal Wage System and General Schedule.
Read More
With the election approaching Marcial Gomez talks about what’s on the line for TSA employees and his concerns about Project 2025.
Read More
Members of AFGE’s DEFCON Steering Group met along with AFGE staff and elected leaders to discuss ways to better serve employees throughout the DoD in the year ahead.
Read More
