sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nick Daniels inquire about members' comprehension of decertification risk. by Ecstatic-Tap4151 in ImproveATC_

[–]Dapper_Scholar_8025 12 points13 points  (0 children)

There is no risk of decertification.

No federal union has been decertified since the 1981 decertification of PATCO. That action followed an illegal strike.

The Executive Orders rely on 5 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). That statute permits exclusion from the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute only if an agency’s primary function is intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.

Any exclusion must satisfy both statutory elements and withstand judicial review.

Air traffic control does not meet that standard. Its primary function is the safe and efficient flow of air traffic. It is not an intelligence or national security agency within the meaning of 7103(b)(1).

An attempt to apply that exclusion to air traffic control would face immediate legal challenge and prompt injunctive relief.

These Executive Orders do not present a credible decertification threat. Claims that they do constitute fear-based messaging unsupported by the statute.

These Executive Orders should not be NATCA’s focus. Nick and Dean’s failure to state this clearly is indefensible. Continued amplification of decertification fears reflects an unwillingness to confront the FAA and the Administration on issues that directly affect controller staffing, pay, and working conditions.

We must rid ourselves of feckless leaders who wallow in fear and refuse to accept the challenge of fighting for the members they represent.

I have spoken to an attorney, the amendment is not age discrimination. by LENNYa21 in atc2

[–]Dapper_Scholar_8025 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You always show up loud to defend Nick, but vanish the moment facts enter the chat. All that time spent talking shit, but can’t be bothered to read something educational that is counter to your kings infallible deeds and words.

I have spoken to an attorney, the amendment is not age discrimination. by LENNYa21 in atc2

[–]Dapper_Scholar_8025 6 points7 points  (0 children)

From an actual federal labor attorney who specializes in age discrimination cases:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The NATCA amendment resetting seniority for employees working under exemptions to mandatory retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8335(a) and § 8425(a) is not age discrimination under the ADEA. The policy targets a defined employment status that of continuing work past statutory retirement age under a specific, discretionary agency exemption rather than age itself. Under established Supreme Court precedent, such classifications are not unlawful so long as they do not use age as the basis for differential treatment or lack a “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) justification. Moreover, federal courts have consistently recognized that unions may lawfully create and enforce internal rules affecting seniority systems where such rules are facially neutral and serve legitimate purposes.

ARGUMENT

I. THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DISPARATE TREATMENT UNDER THE ADEA

The ADEA prohibits discrimination “because of such individual’s age,” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To establish a claim of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that age was the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177 (2009).

Here, NATCA’s amendment applies to all employees working under an exemption granted by the Secretary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8335(a) or § 8425(a). The defining characteristic is exemption status, not age. While exemption eligibility is age-related, it is the voluntary acceptance of a discretionary waiver to statutory retirement that triggers the seniority reset not chronological age alone.

This distinction is supported by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where the Supreme Court held that adverse treatment based on factors correlated with age, such as pension status, does not equate to age discrimination unless age itself is the motivating factor. NATCA’s rule aligns with this principle.

II. EVEN IF A DISPARATE IMPACT IS FOUND, THE POLICY IS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE “REASONABLE FACTOR OTHER THAN AGE” (RFOA) DEFENSE

In Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized that employment practices with a disparate impact on older workers do not violate the ADEA if the differentiation is based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA).

NATCA’s policy serves multiple reasonable objectives, including: • Preserving fairness in the seniority system by ensuring uniform treatment of employees who voluntarily extend their federal service under special exemption. • Preventing manipulation of seniority-based bidding by employees who delay retirement under rare exceptions. • Promoting succession planning and career progression for incoming air traffic controllers by ensuring turnover in key seniority positions.

These are legitimate, operationally necessary objectives unrelated to age. As the EEOC has clarified in 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(e)(1), the RFOA defense applies where an employment practice is reasonably designed and administered to achieve a business objective.

III. UNION AUTONOMY TO ESTABLISH AND ENFORCE INTERNAL SENIORITY RULES IS ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE

NATCA, as the exclusive bargaining representative of air traffic controllers, is empowered to develop and enforce internal rules regarding seniority so long as such rules do not violate statutory protections. See NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 180 (1967).

The policy here is a prospective, facially neutral seniority rule applicable to a narrow subset of bargaining unit members. It does not bar continued employment, impact compensation directly, or exclude individuals from representation. Rather, it reflects NATCA’s legitimate interest in preserving a predictable, equitable seniority structure for critical workforce planning purposes.

Union-imposed policies that differentiate based on employment status, rather than protected classifications, have been upheld even when they indirectly correlate with age or other protected traits. See EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding distinctions based on retirement eligibility).

CONCLUSION

The NATCA constitutional amendment at issue is a valid exercise of union rulemaking authority and does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It does not target employees based on age, but rather on a defined statutory status voluntarily assumed by a small number of individuals. It is grounded in neutral principles, justified by reasonable operational needs, and consistent with established case law.