In 2020, FLRA Made it Easier to Cancel Union Dues
In July 2020, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) issued a policy decision that made it easier for a federal employee to cancel union dues payments. The new FLRA policy decision resulted from a U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the payment of union dues. (See 1st Amendment and Union Dues for more background.)
At first glance, it did not appear the Supreme Court decision would impact the federal workforce. The federal government operates as an “open shop,” and no federal employee can be required to join a union. In some state or local governments, employees can be required to pay a fee to the union that acts as their representative with a federal agency. Canceling a payment to a federal union through dues-withholding can be difficult and time-consuming, though.
The FLRA policy followed the Supreme Court decision by allowing a federal employee to “initiate the revocation of a previously authorized dues assignment at any time that the employee chooses.”
FLRA Proposes to Reimpose Restrictions for Canceling Dues Withholding Payments
With the change in administration, the FLRA proposed a rule in December 2022 consistent with the Biden administration’s general philosophy of supporting unions when possible. This proposed rule would essentially revert to the previous system of restricting the time a federal employee could revoke a dues withholding, with the agency automatically sending a payment to the union. Comments were due by January 20, 2023.
In December 2022, the FLRA issued a notice in the Federal Register that would overturn the previous FLRA policy statement and reinstate a more restrictive policy on when a federal employee could stop a withholding payment for dues to a union.
In a Federal Register notice, the FLRA proposed:
- Either revising 5 C.F.R. § 2429.19 to provide that dues revocations may be processed only at one-year intervals, or, alternatively, rescinding § 2429.19 in its entirety; and
- (2) rescinding the Authority’s general statement of policy or guidance in OPM, 71 FLRA 571 (2020).
At the time of this writing, the FLRA has not yet issued a decision on this proposed rule.
Difficulty in Canceling Dues Withholding
Federal employee unions were unhappy with the Trump administration’s change in dues withholding policy. One union issued guidance to its locals explaining how to make it easier for federal employees to stop the agency from withholding a union dues payment.
A recent decision from the District Court in the District of Columbia illustrates how difficult it can be to stop a dues withholding once it starts flowing to the union representing employees in a bargaining unit.
Andrew Tower became a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer in August 2019. He also joined the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). At that time, he authorized the agency to start withholding union dues from his paycheck.
In September 2021, Tower resigned his union membership and deauthorized the dues deductions. He alleges in his court case that NTEU converted him to a “member not in good standing” in February 2022. Tower contended that this change triggered a duty on the part of the union to inform the agency of the change and a duty on the part of the agency to cease withholding union dues from his check.
Tower said he was not aware of the change in his status with the union but the union continued to receive money from him through regular dues payments deducted by the agency. Tower submitted a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) asking for more information on the change in his status with the union on November 7, 2022.
Tower filed a lawsuit on January 25, 2023 contending the agency violated the FOIA and Privacy Act by not responding to his request in a timely way. The agency denied his request for information on March 1, 2023.
The decision by the District Court focuses on its failure to respond to the FOIA request.
While a variety of arguments and issues were raised, the decision notes:
The Court agrees with Tower that the public has an interest in understanding how CBP interacts with its employees’ union—and particularly why CBP allegedly continued deducting union dues after one of its employees resigned his union membership.
As best the Court can tell, all these arguments (raised in court filings) have little to do with Tower’s access to records and much to do with positioning the parties for hypothetical fee proceedings. Indeed, Tower explicitly frames many of his arguments in these terms.
Conclusion
While this is presumably an extreme example of how difficult it can be to cancel a dues-withholding authorization, the case shows how an agency worked with a union to continue the withholding and refused to provide information to a federal employee on why it did not stop withholding money from his paycheck.
The decision directs Customs and Border Protection “to search for and process the requested records in line with standard FOIA procedures.
The decision does not address the main issue of how Tower could stop withholding union dues from his paycheck. It appears union dues are still withheld about three years after the federal employee “deauthorized” the withholding. The case is still unresolved, and depending on how the agency reacts to this recent decision, it may still require a long time to resolve the issue.
