FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 09, 2005
September 09, 2005
Emily Ryan
(202) 639-6421
(202) 639-6421
AFGE To Oppose DHS Motion To Limit Scope Of Judge's Order
(Washington)—The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and four other unions today filed an opposition to the government’s attempt to limit the effect of the district court decision blocking the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) labor relations system Subpart E.
In January, AFGE filed suit against DHS’ proposed regulations, also known as MaxHR. On Aug. 12, United States District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a ruling to block DHS from implementing MaxHR, Following that ruling, DHS filed a motion asserting Collyer’s decision did not prevent the bulk of MaxHR from going into effect.
“AFGE argues that the invalidated portions of the regulatory scheme—the authority to unilaterally repudiate collective bargaining agreements and the authority granted to the FLRA to review decisions of the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board—are so integral to DHS’ proposed system that all of Subpart E of the regulations is enjoined by the Court’s decision,” AFGE National President John Gage said.
“Additionally, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act, DHS was required to confer with the unions again before making adjustments to the proposed system. The first time around, DHS and OPM decided not to listen to what we had to say; you think they would have learned their lesson, but I guess not.”
In January, AFGE filed suit against DHS’ proposed regulations, also known as MaxHR. On Aug. 12, United States District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a ruling to block DHS from implementing MaxHR, Following that ruling, DHS filed a motion asserting Collyer’s decision did not prevent the bulk of MaxHR from going into effect.
“AFGE argues that the invalidated portions of the regulatory scheme—the authority to unilaterally repudiate collective bargaining agreements and the authority granted to the FLRA to review decisions of the Homeland Security Labor Relations Board—are so integral to DHS’ proposed system that all of Subpart E of the regulations is enjoined by the Court’s decision,” AFGE National President John Gage said.
“Additionally, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act, DHS was required to confer with the unions again before making adjustments to the proposed system. The first time around, DHS and OPM decided not to listen to what we had to say; you think they would have learned their lesson, but I guess not.”
###
Click here to Donate to the AFGE Federal Employee Defense Fund.
For the latest AFGE news and information, visit the AFGE Media Center.
Follow us on:
