Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. FLRA
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

Summary

“Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. FLRA”, published in 2023, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as status technicians, petitioners and status.

Quotes from Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ But the question on which this case turns is not whether the technicians are federal employees or whether they have civil service or bargaining rights. It is not even whether petitioners are obligated to “safeguard” the technicians’ bargaining rights. The question is whether any such obligations can be enforced by means of an order from the FLRA.
In the context of our own remedial authority, we regularly acknowledge many potential impediments to granting a judicial remedy, even to a litigant that might be able to prove that another party has breached its rights. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ Each dual-status technician is an employee of the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force; those Departments are, in turn, components of the Department of Defense; and the Department of Defense is a covered agency under the Statute. Further, a designation from the Department of the Army is the sole basis for petitioners’ authority to employ dual-status technicians. Accordingly, petitioners employ federal dual-status technicians pursuant to delegated federal authority and subject to federal civil-service requirements. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ Under the FSLMRS, it is “an unfair labor practice for an agency” “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under” the Statute. 5 U. S. C. §7116 (a) (1) . The FLRA’s jurisdiction over this unfair labor practices dispute thus turns on whether petitioners are an “agency” for purposes of the Statute when they act in their capacities as supervisors of dual-status technicians, a question bounded by a series of defined terms. The Statute defines an “agency” as “an Executive agency,” with exceptions not relevant here. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ The designation of petitioners by the Departments of the Army and Air Force to perform some of those departments’ duties and to exercise some of their authority does not turn petitioners into agencies or necessarily have any effect beyond assigning them those duties and responsibilities. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ Indeed, it would be passing strange if dual-status technicians, who qualify as employees under the Statute, were supervised by an entity not required to safeguard the rights guaranteed employees under the Statute. §§7102 (providing that “each employee shall be protected in the exercise of” his right to join or refrain from joining a labor association) and 7103 (a) (2) (A) (defining an “ ‘employee’ ” as “an individual ... employed in an agency”) . The case caption in this matter reflects the Guard’s federal function with respect to hiring dual-status technicians ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ Although the majority’s historical-practice argument is flawed at the foundation because it misreads §7135 (b) , the single administrative decision it cites in support of its argument does not shed much light on the matter at hand anyway. In Thompson Field, the Adjutant General of the State of Mississippi raised a number of objections to federal oversight of the technicians, including that the technicians are not federal employees ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ Congress’s directive to “continu [e] ” existing administrative practices does not evince approval of any particular practice or prevent a court from saying that a particular practice has been unlawful all along. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (2023)

“ We would, therefore, ordinarily presume that the FSLMRS maintained the same coverage that existed under the prior regime. See, e.g., George v. McDonough, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5) ; Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 5–6) . ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Ohio Adjutant General's Department v… (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature