Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 449–470

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT May 18, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. OCTOBER TERM, 2022 449

Syllabus

OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT et al. v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 21–1454. Argued January 9, 2023—Decided May 18, 2023 The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) provides for collective bargaining between federal agencies and their employees' unions; bars each from committing unfair labor practices; and establishes the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to in- vestigate and adjudicate labor disputes. See 5 U. S. C. § 7101 et seq. At issue here, the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3970, AFL–CIO is the exclusive representative of certain federal civil-service employees known as dual-status technicians who work for the Ohio National Guard. After their prior collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) expired, petitioners here—the Ohio National Guard, the Ohio Adjutant General, and the Ohio Adjutant General's Depart- ment (collectively the Guard)—asserted that the Guard was not bound Page Proof Pending Publication by the FSLMRS when interacting with the Guard's dual-status techni- cians. The Union subsequently fled an unfair labor practice complaint with the FLRA to resolve the dispute. Pointing to the fact that the FLRA only has jurisdiction over labor organizations and federal agen- cies, petitioners argued that the Guard was not an “agency” and that dual-status technician bargaining-unit employees were not “employees” for purposes of the FSLMRS. The Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended decision fnding that: the FLRA had jurisdiction over the Guard; the dual-status technicians had collective-bargaining rights under the FSLMRS; and the Guard's actions in repudiating the CBA violated the FSLMRS. A divided panel of the FLRA adopted the ALJ's fndings, conclusions, and remedial order. Petitioners sought re- view in the Sixth Circuit, which denied relief. Held: The FLRA had jurisdiction over this labor dispute because a State National Guard acts as a federal agency for purposes of the FSLMRS when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role. The question whether petitioners are an “agency” for purposes of the FSLMRS when they act as supervisors of dual-status technicians is bounded by a series of defned statutory terms. 5 U. S. C. § 7116(a)(1). The FSLMRS defnes “agency” to include the Department of Defense. § 7103(a)(3). And each dual-status “technician . . . is an employee of 450 OHIO ADJUTANT GENERAL'S DEPT. v. FLRA

Syllabus

the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force.” 32 U. S. C. § 709(e); see also 10 U. S. C. § 10216(a)(1)(A). Those Depart- ments, in turn, are components of the Department of Defense. §§ 111(b)(6) and (8). Components of covered agencies plainly fall within the reach of the FSLMRS. See 5 U. S. C. §§ 7103(a)(12), 7112(a). Thus, when petitioners employ dual-status technicians, they—like components of an agency—exercise the authority of the Department of Defense, a covered agency. The statutory authority permitting the Ohio Adjutant General to em- ploy