Union Station: Federal Labor Relations Authority decertifies National ICE Council

Federal Labor Relations Authority decertifies National ICE Council

On Aug. 11, Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Regional Director Jessica S. Bartlett granted the American Federation of Government Employees’ (AFGE) petition to disclaim representational interest in AFGE Council 118—the National ICE Council—and decertified the union. National ICE Council President Chris Crane called the decision whistleblower retaliation, and U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said that the Council’s interests were not represented.

Timeline

Here’s a brief timeline of events:

June 20, 2022: The National ICE Council filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor asking for financial independence from AFGE and the AFL-CIO, as well as an audit of the unions.
July 12, 2022: AFGE filed paperwork with the FLRA requesting to no longer represent the ICE bargaining unit.
Aug. 3, 2022: FLRA Regional Director Jessica S. Bartlett denied the National ICE Council’s request to intervene in the case.
Aug. 10, 2022: The National ICE Council filed an unfair labor practice complaint against AFGE.
Aug. 11, 2022: Bartlett granted AFGE’s request, decertifying the National ICE Council and dissolving the ICE bargaining unit.

Background

As covered in the July 15 edition of Union Station, the National ICE Council, the union representing over 7,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, filed a complaint seeking financial independence from AFGE and the AFL-CIO with the Department of Labor in June. The Washington Times‘ Stephen Dinan wrote, “The council [said] it cannot get adequate representation from the two organizations, which ‘foster hate and prejudice’ against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and have backed political candidates who call for defunding ICE[.] … The complaint ask[ed] the Labor Department, which oversees labor relations, to impose a full financial audit of the two parent unions, to grant financial independence to the council, and to ensure ‘protections’ from retaliation by the AFGE or AFL-CIO.”

On July 12, AFGE announced it had “[filed] paperwork with the [FLRA] disclaiming interest in the unit.” AFGE National President Everett Kelley stated, “It is clear that the AFGE Council 118 remains steadfast in their desire to no longer be a part of AFGE or the broader labor movement. … As a result, we have made the difficult decision to disclaim interest in this unit. While we had hoped to avoid this outcome, today’s action begins the process of granting Council 118’s request.”

Government Executive’s Erich Wagner wrote on July 14, “Once the process is complete, the ICE council would not automatically become independent. Instead, the bargaining unit itself is disbanded, and all collective bargaining agreements between AFGE Council 118 and the agency are voided.”

The decision

According to documents provided to Ballotpedia by The Washington Times, FLRA Regional Director Jessica S. Bartlett wrote on Aug. 11:

“On May 21, 2010, in Case No. WA-RP-10-0022, AFGE was certified as the exclusive representative of [non-professional employees employed by the United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] … On August 10, 2022, through the parties’ Stipulation of Facts, the Union expressly disclaimed interest in representing the above unit. …

“Section 2422.32(b)(1) of the Authority’s regulations provides that a certification is revoked when an incumbent exclusive representative files a disclaimer of any representational interest in the unit during a representational proceeding. Based on AFGE’s disclaimer of interest, I find that it is appropriate to revoke the certification for the unit of non-professional employees, as described above. …

“Having found that AFGE expressly disclaimed interest in the unit of non-professional employees, and the Parties having waived their right to a hearing and to file an application for review under Section 2422.31 of the Authority’s regulations, pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned, it is hereby ordered that the amended certification of representative issued in Case No. WA-RP-10-0022 be revoked.”

The parties to the case were the United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (agency) and the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (union/petitioner). The case number was WA-RP-22-0051.

Response

According to Dinan, National ICE Council President Chris Crane said following the decision, “There is no doubt that ICE and DHS leadership worked in unison with corrupt union bosses to make this happen. … DHS and AFGE leadership both wanted desperately to silence ICE Council whistleblowers. Without a union, it’s doubtful those whistleblowers will have jobs much longer.” Crane called Bartlett’s decision the “largest single act of whistleblower retaliation in United States history.” Crane said, “We did what we were supposed to do. We reported to the Department of Labor that union bosses at AFGE were allegedly spending dues money on prostitutes and strippers, sexually assaulting their own employees, engaging in payoffs and coverups, and other unlawful and egregious acts. It was supposed to be investigated. We were supposed to be protected.”

On Aug. 12, U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) sent a letter containing 11 questions about the decision to FLRA chairman Ernest DuBester. Lankford said he was “concerned that the FLRA did not have all of the information necessary to bring this matter to an equitable resolution” and was “further concerned that ICE employees’ interests will be poorly represented now that the Council has been decertified.”

According to Lankford, “Neither party in this dispute represented the Council’s interests and its members’ preference against the dissolution of the Council and the seizure of its assets. However, on August 3, 2022, FLRA Regional Director for the Washington Region, Jessica Bartlett denied the Council’s request to intervene in this matter. Illustrating the fact that AFGE’s and the Council’s interests were not aligned, on August 10, the Council filed an unfair labor practice complaint against AFGE.”

In July, Government Executive’s Wagner reported that “An AFGE official [said] staff on the national level [had] engaged in ‘multiple discussions’ with the ICE council … to convince them to remain part of the union but were unsuccessful.” As of Aug. 18, neither AFGE nor the FLRA had commented on the decision.

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 149 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

California AB1577: This bill would allow state legislative employees to organize and bargain collectively.
- Bipartisan sponsorship.
- Read second time in Senate, ordered to third reading Aug. 15.
California SB931: This bill would allow a union to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board against a public employer allegedly in violation of California Government Code Section 3550 and would set civil penalties for violations. Section 3550 prohibits public employers from discouraging union membership.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Read second time in Assembly, amended, ordered to second reading Aug. 15. Read second time, ordered to third reading Aug. 16.
California SB1313: This bill would prohibit Los Angeles County from discriminating against union members by limiting employee health benefits.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Read second time in Assembly, ordered to third reading Aug. 15.
California SB1406: This bill would allow unions representing excluded state employees to request arbitration with the Department of Human Resources in certain circumstances.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Read second time in Assembly, ordered to third reading Aug. 15.

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.