OH Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA (21-1454)

argument 21-1454

OH Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 29m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question about the Ohio Adjutant General’s status as a federal agency?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case twenty one fourteen fifty four, the Ohio Adjutant General's Department versus the Federal Labour Relations Authority. Mr. Flowers.

Flowers 0:13

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Sixth Circuit and the Federal Labor Relations Authority held that Adjutants General and State Guards, when they employ technicians, are federal agencies to which the Authority may issue orders. That is wrong. The Reform Act defines agencies to include executive departments, government corporations, and independent establishments. Adjutants general and state guards are none of these things. They're neither among nor part of the 15 cabinet level agencies that qualify as executive departments. They are not government corporations because they are not corporations, and they are not independent establishments, because they are not part of the executive branch.

Flowers 0:48

The Authority concedes all of that, but it claims it can regulate Adjutants General and State Guards anyway, because they represent or act on behalf of the Defence Department, which is a Reform Act agency, when they employ technicians. But the Reform Act says that the Authority can issue orders to agencies. It gives it no power to issue orders to non agencies simply because they serve as the representatives or agents or designees of an agency. Indeed, a serious sign of the problem with the Authorities' position is that even now, forty years after the Reform Act was enacted, no one can quite give a consensus justification for the authority for the power the Authority wields. The Authorities' arguments have continued to evolve while the Union and Amiki advance novel arguments of their own.

Flowers 1:29

If Congress had really given the Authority this power, if it had really wanted a federal independent agency with jurisdiction over federal labor relations to issue orders to state guards, it would not have made the grant of that power so hard to find. Ultimately, here there's no reason to resist the statute's plain meaning. The dual status technicians are employees of the Defense Department, and they should enforce their labor rights through and against that department. I welcome your questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:56

Mr. Flowers, who hires uh these technicians?

Flowers 1:59

They are hired by the Adjutant General, but they become employees of the Defense Department under 32 U.S. C. C. Seven O nine.

Clarence Thomas 2:06

So under what authority does the Adjutant General hire the technicians?

Flowers 2:13

Federal law empowers us to uh hire technicians. Are that the other thing?

Clarence Thomas 2:16

So it is done through delegation. Yes. So they are Federal employees.

Flowers 2:21

They are Federal employees, and let me try to explain why, because of that, it makes the most practical sense to route these disputes through the Defense Department.

Clarence Thomas 2:29

But is it the complaint the you have the uh the style of the um At least in the petition it says if before the Federal Labor Relations Authority, U.S. Department of Defense, Ohio National Guard is is the style.

Flowers 2:45

That is how the case was captioned, but it was always treated as a suit against the State Guard, not as against the Department of Defense.

Clarence Thomas 2:51

But I thought the Adjutant General was an uh was an intervener, respondent.

Flowers 2:56

the Adjutant General intervened to defend the interest of the State National Guard, which was the initial party.

Clarence Thomas 3:03

So this would make your argument would make much more sense if we were talking about the state highway patrol. Um could you explain uh Exactly when a technician is a federal employee and for what purposes and when a technician is a state employee.

Flowers 3:23

So they are always a Federal employee under 32 U.S.C. 709E, and we're not disputing that they have collective bargaining rights or that we are using these Federal employees. The question here is whether we are ourselves a federal agency, because they can issue an order to us only if we are in fact an agency. That's what the statute says. And we are not a federal agency, even if we are an agent or a designee of the Federal Government, because being someone's agent does not be a good idea. not turn you into the principal, just means you are acting on behalf of the principal.