## Facts

- PATCO was the exclusive bargaining representative for federal air traffic controllers employed by the FAA.
- On August 3, 1981, a nationwide work stoppage by air traffic controllers disrupted the national air traffic system and caused widespread flight cancellations.
- The President ordered controllers to return to work and warned that failure to do so would result in termination; many did not return within 48 hours and were dismissed, and PATCO officers faced contempt sanctions in related proceedings.
- The FLRA General Counsel issued an unfair labor practice complaint alleging PATCO called or participated in a strike prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7) and sought revocation of PATCO’s exclusive recognition.
- An FLRA ALJ found a violation and recommended decertification; the FLRA adopted the recommendation and revoked PATCO’s certification.
- During review, concerns arose about off-the-record ex parte contacts with decisionmakers in the FLRA proceeding; an evidentiary hearing before a specially appointed neutral ALJ produced findings on the nature and effect of those contacts.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the FLRA’s finding that PATCO called or participated in a strike in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7).
2. Whether the FLRA abused its discretion by revoking PATCO’s exclusive recognition as a remedy for the unfair labor practice.
3. Whether ex parte communications in the FLRA adjudication violated 5 U.S.C. § 557(d), and, if so, whether the violation required setting aside or remanding the decertification order.
4. Whether the proceedings denied PATCO a fair hearing due to asserted time constraints, bias, or political pressure.

## Decision

- The court denied PATCO’s petition for review and affirmed the FLRA’s decertification order.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the finding that PATCO called or participated in the unlawful strike.
- The court held the FLRA acted within its remedial discretion in revoking PATCO’s exclusive recognition given the seriousness and impact of the unlawful strike and PATCO’s prior conduct.
- The court found certain ex parte contacts were improper under APA norms applicable to formal adjudication, but concluded they did not materially affect the outcome or irrevocably taint the decisionmaking process.
- The court rejected procedural fairness challenges, concluding PATCO received notice and a meaningful opportunity to present its case before the agency and on judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- Under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7), a labor organization’s calling or participation in a strike against the federal government constitutes an unfair labor practice.
- FLRA unfair labor practice proceedings are formal adjudications subject to the APA’s ex parte communications restrictions in 5 U.S.C. § 557(d).
- A violation of § 557(d) does not automatically require vacatur; the reviewing court assesses whether the improper contacts introduced material new matter, prejudiced a party, or tainted the integrity of the agency’s decisional process.
- The FLRA has broad discretion to select remedies for unfair labor practices, and courts generally defer absent arbitrariness, caprice, or abuse of discretion.
- Due process in agency adjudication requires notice and an opportunity to be heard; expedited timing or external controversy does not alone establish bias or unfairness.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the FLRA’s decertification of PATCO for participating in an unlawful federal-employee strike, deferred to the agency’s remedial choice, and held that although some ex parte communications were improper under the APA, they did not prejudice PATCO or warrant overturning the agency’s order.


Pro. Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 685 F.2d 547 (D.C. Cir. 1982)