45 F.4th 121
D.C. Cir.2022Background
- The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute allows federal employees to bargain collectively and lets agency heads review collective bargaining agreements within 30 days of an agreement’s execution (5 U.S.C. §§ 7114(c), 7116(a)(7)).
- Section 7116(a)(7) generally bars agencies from enforcing regulations that conflict with an existing collective bargaining agreement if the regulations became effective after the agreement.
- Continuance clauses extend an expiring agreement while parties negotiate a successor; rollover clauses instead automatically renew by mutual inaction.
- The FLRA issued guidance holding that (1) agency heads may review an agreement extended under a continuance clause as if it were newly executed, and (2) an employing agency may enforce conflicting regulations that became effective after the agreement’s original effective date once the agreement is continued.
- Three unions challenged the FLRA guidance; USDA and OPM intervened to defend it. The court reviewed the FLRA’s statutory interpretations under Chevron and set aside the guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether invoking/operating a continuance clause "executes" a new agreement for purposes of the 30‑day agency‑head review (§ 7114(c)) | A continuance merely extends the existing agreement; it does not execute a new agreement, so no new 30‑day review is triggered | Agency/FLRA: an extension under a continuance clause allows a new execution-like event that permits agency‑head review | Court: Continuance preserves the original agreement rather than executing a new one; no second agency‑head review is authorized |
| Whether an employing agency may enforce regulations that became effective after the original agreement once the agreement is extended via continuance (§ 7116(a)(7)) | Continuance keeps the agreement "in effect/in force," so § 7116(a)(7) continues to bar enforcement of later conflicting regulations | Agency/FLRA: once extended under continuance, the agency may enforce later regulations that conflict with the agreement | Court: Agreement remains "in effect" during continuance; agency may not enforce later conflicting regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (statutory terms may take meaning from background contract principles)
- Eastham v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, 754 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2014) (contract extension preserves same agreement)
- AFGE v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 850 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (scope of collective bargaining agreement for review)
- Northland Capital Corp. v. Silver, 735 F.2d 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (mutual assent required to form contract)
- Housing Auth. of City of Dallas v. Killingsworth, 331 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. Ct. App. 2011) (execution of a written agreement defined)
- Distillery Rectifying & Wine Workers Int’l Union v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 213 S.W.2d 610 (Ky. 1948) (rollover/renewal can effect a new contract)