By Jim Saunders ©2024 The News Service of Florida
TALLAHASSEE — A U.S. district judge Friday rejected a lawsuit filed by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody in a dispute about federal transit funding and a 2023 state law that placed additional restrictions on public employee unions.
Judge Melissa Damian issued a 36-page ruling that sided with the Biden administration. A key issue was a longstanding federal law designed to ensure that transit workers’ collective-bargaining rights are protected before federal transit money is provided to local agencies.
The 2023 state law included a series of controversial restrictions on public employee unions, including preventing workers from having dues deducted from their paychecks and requiring unions to be recertified as bargaining agents if fewer than 60 percent of eligible employees pay dues. Numerous unions have argued that the law violates collective-bargaining rights.
In 2023, Florida transit agencies, including agencies in Miami-Dade and Broward County, submitted applications for federal money, Damian wrote. But unions objected because they said the state law (SB 256) prevented transit agencies from continuing collective-bargaining rights.
Ultimately, the state Public Employees Relations Commission granted waivers from the 2023 law to the transit agencies. But Damian’s ruling said the state disagreed with a Department of Labor determination that parts of the law, including the ban on paycheck dues deductions, harmed collective bargaining.
Moody’s office filed the lawsuit in October, alleging that the federal law was unconstitutional. Also, the lawsuit alleged that the Department of Labor had violated another law known as the Administrative Procedure Act because its determination about the state law harming collective bargaining was “arbitrary and capricious.”
“The Department of Labor has given Florida an ultimatum — abandon the reforms enacted through SB 256 or lose hundreds of millions in federal funding,” the lawsuit said. “Because that ultimatum is based on an unconstitutional funding condition and is otherwise contrary to law, Florida brings this suit to protect its access to critical funding and its sovereign prerogative to regulate in the realm of collective bargaining.”
But in court documents, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys argued that the judge should dismiss the case or grant summary judgment to the defendants.
The Justice Department attorneys wrote that the parts of the law dealing with dues deduction and the potential required recertification of unions “substantially clash with transit employees’ rights to be represented by a designated bargaining agent and to bargain collectively through that representative on critical mandatory subjects. Plaintiff’s (the state’s) say-so that this interference is no more than ‘de minimis,’ without elaboration or support, cannot disturb DOL’s (the Department of Labor’s) conclusion.”
Moody’s office alleged, in part, that the federal law was unconstitutional because of “ambiguous terms governing the grant of funds,” Damian wrote. But she rejected the argument.
“In sum, the state has not demonstrated that it has been presented with a scenario in which it is required to accept funds under unconstitutionally ambiguous conditions,” Damian wrote. “Nor has it demonstrated that the statute is facially unconstitutional. Therefore, this court declines the state’s request for a declaration that (the federal law) is unconstitutional.”
Also, she rejected the argument that the Department of Labor violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
“(A) reading of the statute’s plain text reflects that Congress gave the DOL the authority to construe (the federal law) to determine whether provisions that affect employee collective bargaining rights are ‘fair and equitable.’” Damian wrote. “The state offers no authority to support a finding that the DOL violated the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) where the DOL did what Congress said it could do.”
