FOLLOW US

In a legal battle that blends bureaucracy and labor rights, an arbitrator ruled Monday that while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must provide its attorneys' union with copies of settlement agreements, it is not required to allow pre-execution review. The decision comes as a blow to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 245, which represents around 820 USPTO attorneys, as they sought a greater role in reviewing settlements impacting their working conditions.

USPTO Attorney Union Bid: Post-Execution Access Granted

While the union’s request for pre-execution settlement review was denied, arbitrator Joseph Slater ruled that the USPTO must still provide the union with a copy of any settlements within five days of their signing. This provides the union some access to settlement details but stops short of granting the advance oversight they were seeking.

Slater, who was called upon to break the impasse between the USPTO and Chapter 245, didn’t mince words in explaining the rationale behind his decision. "The union's request for pre-execution review may be appropriate under different circumstances," he said. "But as of now, it is a solution for a problem that does not exist."

Clash Over Attorney Work Conditions

The friction between the USPTO and its attorneys’ union centers on work conditions and how settlements might affect them. NTEU Chapter 245 argued that early access to settlements was essential for protecting attorney rights. However, Slater’s ruling highlighted the lack of evidence that the current system, where the union reviews settlements post-execution, had caused any harm or litigation.

The arbitrator's decision draws a hard line between proactive oversight and reactionary review, leaving the union with limited recourse for influencing settlements before they become final.

USPTO Attorney Union Bid : Meeting Participation and Notification Rights

The arbitration didn’t stop at settlement review. Another point of contention involved the union’s right to participate in formal discussions regarding attorney work issues. While both parties acknowledged the union’s federal labor rights, they couldn’t agree on when those rights should apply.

Chapter 245 pushed for a specific list of meetings where they could formally engage with the agency. Slater, however, dismissed this proposal, arguing that such a list was unnecessary. "Neither party has provided any reason that such a list is either necessary or particularly helpful," he noted. Without a comprehensive list, the union is left in a more reactive position, awaiting notification of meetings rather than proactively planning for them.