Union, agency continue tug-of-war over airport screener layoffs

A legal wrangle between the largest federal employee union and the Transportation Security Administration escalated last week when agency officials deflected accusations that recent downsizing initiatives violated employee rights.

Three months ago, agency officials committed to eliminating as many as 6,000 screener jobs by Sept. 30, through attrition, transfers and, if necessary, layoffs based on employee performance. After a second review, agency officials decided that workforce restructuring was needed, with some airports losing screeners and others gaining part-time workers to help during peak hours. At that time, TSA said that employees would be given the chance to transfer to understaffed airports and receive as much as $5,000 to help pay relocation costs.

In August, American Federation of Government Employees officials filed a lawsuit against TSA alleging that the agency ignored veterans' preference and other federal workforce reduction rules during recent screener layoffs. Established reduction-in-force rules protect veterans, long-time federal employees, and employees who have received positive performance evaluations.

In its lawsuit, AFGE asked that the RIF be redone and asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order preventing TSA from hiring new screeners until a judge ruled on the lawsuit.

While an agency spokesman said he could not comment on pending litigation, in an Aug. 25 response to the lawsuit, attorneys for TSA pointed out that the 2001 law creating the agency gave its administrator broad discretion to hire and fire screeners. They also argued that union officials failed to show how preventing further workforce reductions would benefit those employees who were already laid off.

In a rebuttal filed Aug. 27, AFGE attorneys accused the agency of wanting to "have its cake and eat it, too."

Darrin Kayser, the TSA spokesman, said the agency was "committed to a diverse workforce which includes many veterans nationwide."

The case is pending before a federal judge.