Representing Transportation Security Officers

As the only union to represent and stand behind Transportation Security Officers since the beginning, AFGE is at the forefront of the struggle to secure rights and improve working conditions at TSA. AFGE has taken on TSA in the courts, and before the International Labor Organization, Federal Labor Relations Authority and TSA Disciplinary Review Board over issues including collective bargaining rights, fair personnel systems, merit-based pay and promotion policies, and regular and reasonable work schedules.

AFGE Is Here For Your Protection
If you are a TSO who has a worker's comp injury, has been a victim of discrimination, or has been retaliated against, AFGE can help.
Call 1-866-392-6832 for more information.

AFGE attorneys, national organizers, and national representatives have represented TSA screening personnel since its inception through the TSA's internal (and non-neutral) grievance procedure, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, the EEOC, the TSA's Discipline Review Board (DRB), and the courts. AFGE has directly represented TSOs in hundreds of cases.

Through direct representation, AFGE has not only benefited hundreds of screeners, but AFGE has also had the opportunity to learn about TSA, TSA's interpretation of law, and the resulting lack of employee rights. Each win and each loss exemplifies serious problems at the TSA. To paraphrase one judge in his ruling in favor of the government: although the Agency's practice was not unlawful, it was in no way moral.See Calvin v. U.S., 63 Fed.Cl. 468 (2005). Notwithstanding the law and policy being stacked against TSA employees and stripping away most of their rights, AFGE has successfully represented many screeners; a few examples include:

• A baggage screener working at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, who had received consistently high job performance reviews, was tested on re‑certification for passenger screening techniques and consequently failed her certification exam. As a result of her 'failing' passenger screening techniques, she was terminated. With AFGE representation, she filed an appeal with the DRB. Though it took five long months to respond, the Board did find that she "should have been returned to passenger screening duties in preparation for the certification process" and reinstated her to her position with compensation for lost pay and leave. However, she declined the offer, having found a new job which she said treated her better than TSA management. 

• In August 2005, AFGE won a gender and disability discrimination case that it brought against the TSA on behalf of a former transportation security screener from San Diego International Airport. The EEOC ruled in favor of the complainant and sanctioned TSA for its numerous failures in its responsibility to process the case. The decision listed seven ways in which the TSA delayed the case by refusing to follow federal regulations and the orders of the EEOC judge.

• In January 2006, the DRB overturned the agency's decision to remove one of its airport screeners and awarded back pay. On his behalf, AFGE successfully argued that the screener was not given sufficient and accurate notice of the alleged offense before his termination, and that the screener did not actually owe a debt of greater than $5,000 as alleged. TSA has a policy that requires screeners not to hold delinquencies of greater than $5,000 without proof of adherence to arrangements of payment. In winter of last year, TSA required the appellant to show proof that he was in compliance with TSA's debt policy due to an alleged debt of $20,812. TSA gave the screener a mere 10 calendar days to supply the evidence, andless than 10 calendar days later, proposed the appellant's termination for failure to provide an explanation for the alleged indebtedness. The DRB's decision adopted many of the points made by AFGE in its appeal.

• In March 2006, AFGE actively fought for the jobs of 20 airport screeners who had been wrongfully terminated or proposed for termination by TSA officials at Orlando International Airport. In direct violation of TSA policy, management at Orlando was requiring that screeners who did not perform passenger screening take the passenger portions of the annual recertification test. Management officials then terminated or proposed the termination of these screeners for failing to pass that portion of the test. AFGE repeatedly contacted the Assistant Federal Security Director at Orlando and the TSA Ombudsman's Office until these screeners were all successfully returned to duty.

• After four years of TSA's foot-dragging and the misplacement of the case file in the EEOC field office, an EEO Administrative Judge ruled in favor of a Pittsburgh TSO who filed a complaint that she was retaliated against after complaining to management about a co-worker who was sexually harassing her. The judge found that the management official who reassigned the TSO failed to explain why the TSO was given a reassignment she clearly did not want after she complained about the sexual harassment. The judge further found that the management official's testimony was not credible.

• AFGE successfully argued to have a Salt Lake City TSO's removal reduced to a five-day suspension. The TSO was fired prematurely when an emergency situation prevented him from giving the maximum advance notice for his approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. AFGE filed an appeal with the DRB in April 2006, arguing that the TSO made a good-faith effort to comply with leave procedures, but it was not practical in his circumstance.

• AFGE scored a victory for four TSOs at San Jose Mineta International Airport in San Jose, Calif. Each of the four TSOs was suspended from 3-10 days for a series of events stemming from an incident in February 2007. AFGE argued that the screeners could not be held accountable for a management failure to properly identify and correct a situation that was incompatible with TSA policy. Each suspension was fully rescinded and all four screeners were returned to work with back pay.

• After AFGE took his case to the EEOC, an administrative judge in September 2007 ruled that TSA unlawfully discriminated against a security screener based on his religion. The judge found that by refuting the complainants request for Sundays off, the agency had discriminated against the TSO on the basis of his religion and therefore was liable for back pay with interest, as well as any pay raises and/or benefits that would have been earned during this time. TSA was also ordered to reinstate the complainant to his position or provide one substantially similar, and offer religious accommodations.

• A Dallas/Fort Worth TSO was restored to her position as a Lead after being demoted to TSO because TSA management failed to follow the doctrine of progressive discipline in determining the appropriate discipline in her case. The DRB, on March 13, 2008, found that the employee made an unintentional mistake and that she acted quickly to correct it, thereby minimizing operational impact. The board agreed with AFGE that such mistakes can and do occur, and decided that in this case, a demotion was excessive punishment. The LTSO's pay grade and pay rate have since been restored and she has received back pay for any loss of pay that resulted from the demotion action.

• In September 2008, the DRB rescinded the removal of a St. Louis TSO who was removed for inadequate PASS scores.

• Similarly, the DRB reinstated a Detroit Metro STSO with back pay in April 2008, who was removed for inadequate PASS scores.

• In Birmingham, Alabama, two probationary TSOs were designated AWOL every day they declined to cut their long braided hair. After AFGE's Office of General Counsel intervened, TSA permitted the two TSOs to return to work and revised their records to grant them administrative leave for the days that they were previously recorded as AWOL. TSA ultimately modified its policies to permit male TSOs to wear similar hairstyles.

• A TSO at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, who failed his annual recertification test, was removed. The TSO was placed on a performance improvement plan in which weekly meetings with his supervisor and basic screener training were required, but the supervisor never met with the TSO on a weekly basis and he was never given the opportunity to attend the training. AFGE filed an appeal with the Disciplinary Review Board, arguing that TSA did not follow its own policy when the TSO was placed under the performance improvement plan. Consequently, the board reinstated the TSO.

• A TSO at Sarasota Bradenton International Airport was removed for failing to follow screening procedures. AFGE filed an appeal with the Disciplinary Review Board, arguing that the punishment was too harsh and that TSA failed to follow the doctrine of progressive discipline. As a result of AFGE's efforts, the board reinstated the TSO.

• AFGE filed suit on April 1, 2004, charging TSA with illegally terminating former AFGE Local President John Gavello for engaging in protected union activity (organizing an AFGE chapter). TSA filed a motion to dismiss alleging in part that the CSRA preempted this Constitutional challenge, that AFGE Local 1 lacked standing to sue, and that TSA was immune from Constitutional challenges. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the agency and dismissed the case. AFGE filed a notice of appeal on or about January 24, 2005 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. On September 5, 2007, the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of AFGE Local 1 and Mr. Gavello. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that AFGE had standing to sue in its own right when its membership faces retaliation for joining AFGE. The U.S. Court of Appeals also held that the U.S. District Court had jurisdiction to review Mr. Gavello's Constitutional claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court, where the parties executed a settlement agreement that the District Court Judge signed into an order before dismissing the case. Under the settlement agreement, TSA agreed to pay John Gavello and AFGE Local 1 $80,000 for back pay and attorney's fees. TSA also agreed to expunge from all employment records any reference to his removal, his letter of reprimand, and his placement on administrative leave pending investigation.

• A Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport TSO was removed for failure to follow screening procedures and misconduct. AFGE filed an appeal with the DRB and on May 10, 2008, the DRB reversed the removal and reinstated the TSO.

• A Gerald R. Ford International Airport TSO allegedly scored a 100% on PASS, but received a bonus short $1000 and a pay raise 2.5% less than the TSO was owed, which was commensurate with a lower PASS score. Although management promised to repay the amount the TSO was owed, it did not actually pay the TSO until AFGE was contacted four months later.

• A Chicago O'Hare International Airport STSO was removed for misconduct and lack of candor. On 12/15/2008, AFGE filed a DRB Appeal. The DRB mitigated the penalty from a removal to a demotion.

• A Phoenix Shy Harbor International Airport TSO was removed for inattention to duty. TSA presented the statement of a single witness to support its charge that he was sleeping during his 5 A.M. exit lane shift. AFGE filed a DRB Appeal on December 12, 2008. On March 25, 2009, Management mitigated the penalty from removal to a 14-day suspension.

• A Houston Intercontinental Airport LTSO was removed on December 4, 2008 for failure to follow leave procedures and failure to follow instructions. After AFGE filed an appeal on the LTSO's behalf, the DRB mitigated the removal to a demotion.

• In April 2009, the EEOC ruled that the TSA discriminated against a TSA employee at Washington Dulles International Airport based on disability when the agency removed him from his position four years ago. The judge awarded the TSO back pay and an unprecedented $150,000 in compensatory damages, as well as attorney fees. The judge also ordered TSA to train its management and HR team at Dulles on disability rights, and post a notice to all TSA employees at Dulles about the finding and their right to be free from discrimination at the workplace.

• In April 2009, a TSO at Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS) was removed after being placed on indefinite suspension for tampering with the security screening system. The TSO had observed a fellow TSO alter a screening machine in order to play a joke on a co-worker and had failed to report the incident to Management. AFGE filed an appeal on his behalf arguing that he was unaware he needed to report the incident to Management and was an innocent bystander to the incident. The DRB mitigated the TSO's removal to a 30 day suspension and the TSO was able to return to work with three months back pay.

• In July 2009, the Disciplinary Review Board overturned a removal action taken against a BNA (Nashville International Airport) TSO and ruled that he should be reinstated to duty. The BNA TSO, who had over twenty-five years of federal service, including six years of service to TSA, was removed on March 10, 2009, based on one charge: lack of candor. Management alleged that the TSO lacked candor in his statements to his supervisors and managers about his medical restrictions. AFGE argued that the removal was unwarranted and should be overturned because the TSO never gave false information to his supervisors about his medical restrictions.