Bipartisan leadership safeguards both the process and purpose of independent agencies.
At 10:45 p.m. on February 10, 2025, I was a member and chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the executive branch. One minute later, a representative of the President sent me an email that read: “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position on the Federal Labor Relations Authority is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service.”
As a sister agency of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the FLRA protects the rights of federal employees to form unions, bargain collectively, and engage in certain activities to improve working conditions. Like the NLRB, the FLRA’s mission consists largely of processing and adjudicating administrative appeals and cases. Unlike the NLRB, the FLRA’s enabling statute requires bipartisan leadership.
Established as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, commonly known as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the FLRA is overseen by a three-member panel. Members serve staggered terms, are appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate, and may only be removed, following notice and hearing, and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Included in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, this for-cause removal protection was intended to ensure that FLRA members are free from bias toward either political party. FLRA members are not beholden to the views of the President or any political party, and are independent “from any direct responsibility to the incumbent administration.” At the time, lawmakers believed that the FLRA’s impartiality would be “guaranteed by protecting authority members from unwarranted ‘Saturday night’ removals.”
Collective bargaining in the federal sector is profoundly important. The federal government provides essential services we depend upon daily, such as law enforcement at our national borders, food inspectors who ensure that the food we eat is safe, and air traffic controllers who guide us to our destinations and bring us home.
Although not every issue is negotiable in the federal sector, the voices of those who perform the work are as vital as those who direct the work, and set an agency’s goals, mission, and vision. It is crucial that we know what is feasible and workable, directly from those who actually perform the work. The FLRA’s statute proclaims at the outset “labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest.” Words have meaning.
Yet, executive orders issued by the current Administration have severely limited union recognition, terminating numerous collective bargaining agreements that existed for decades and eliminating the FLRA’s jurisdiction in countless agencies. At the same time, these executive orders, issued in the name of “constructive partnerships,” grant exemptions for certain bargaining units.
Unions have argued that the Administration has terminated contracts in retaliation against unions that have engaged in politically disfavored speech critical of the President’s agenda. Ongoing litigation continues to challenge the legality of these orders.
Bipartisanship presents opportunities to collaborate. For more than half my term, I served with only one other statutory colleague, a Republican. Cases upon which two remaining FLRA members disagree go into abeyance pending confirmation of a third member to break the tie. Confirmation of a new member itself may take months or years, depending on the process and unforeseen issues beyond the FLRA’s control. Delays in case processing serve neither the interests of federal agencies nor their unions, leaving the parties with uncertainty, which ultimately impacts agency functions and funding, thereby impacting the federal taxpayer.
My colleague and I could not resolve all of our differences, but we took a balanced approach on certain key legal issues, successfully adopted procedural rules, collaborated on a number of projects, and maintained the FLRA in the Top 10 “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Rankings.” Resolution is possible when both sides are willing to listen and work with each other.
The Government in the Sunshine Act prevents FLRA members, unlike federal judges, from speaking to each other directly about cases without complying with public processes. That said, in addition to briefs, motions, and argument submitted by the parties, we listen to our fellow board members’ views, through staff discussions and draft decisions, seeking to form a majority or stand alone in a dissent.
I have urged our stakeholders to read, not merely the majority decision, but the entire decision. Dissents have significance, and at the FLRA, often those opinions become roadmaps for tomorrow’s majority decisions. Dissents also bring arguments to the forefront, compelling the majority to respond, resulting in more comprehensive opinions. Bipartisan membership makes this possible.
By appreciating opposing views, and the perspectives of the people who hold such views, lasting relationships form. The Federal Labor Relations Authority is not so named by mere chance. In the federal workforce, the people on the opposing side will be the same people you see tomorrow, and thereafter, whether you prevail before the FLRA today.
Previously, I served as a member and chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which functions as the guardian of nine merit principles in federal employment, providing general standards on hiring, employment, promotion, and separation. Enshrined in statute, these merit principles include recruitment and retention based on qualifications and performance, equal pay for equal work, and protection from unlawful reprisal. The eighth principle protects employees against “arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes.”
Although these principles seem obvious, they should not be ignored, and they form the basis of the meritocracy we have come to expect from the federal government. We expect the federal government to act as the model employer and, as such, to first follow the rules passed by the U.S. Congress or, at a minimum, seek to have those rules changed.
I know that my removal was not personal but part of a larger political objective. It was a privilege, not only to serve the community of labor relations professionals but also to serve with the dedicated FLRA staff who are passionate about their work. With passion comes purpose and commitment to time-tested ideals, ideals to which I still subscribe—and always will.
This essay is part of a series titled, “In Defense of Regulatory Independence.”
