American Federation of Government Employees Local 3690 v. FLRA
3f4th384
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- FCI Miami began an "augmentation" practice in early 2016, using Non‑Custody employees to fill vacant Custody positions without bargaining with AFGE Local 3690.
- AFGE requested bargaining, was refused, filed a grievance, and invoked arbitration.
- The arbitrator found FCI Miami breached a binding past practice, violated the Master Agreement and a local MOU, and ruled for AFGE.
- FCI Miami filed exceptions to the award with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
- The FLRA (majority) set aside the award in full, concluding the arbitrator’s decision did not draw its essence from the Master Agreement because Article 18 unambiguously allowed reassignment/augmentation.
- AFGE sought judicial review; the D.C. Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction because the FLRA decision did not "involve" an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), and dismissed the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FLRA decision "involves" an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1) | AFGE: The FLRA ruling necessarily implies an unfair labor practice and so is reviewable. | FLRA/FCI: The dispute was framed and decided solely as a contractual/arbitral matter; no substantive ULP analysis. | Held: No; the decision did not involve a ULP, so the court lacks § 7123 jurisdiction. |
| Whether the arbitrator’s award properly drew its essence from the Master Agreement | AFGE: Arbitrator correctly found past practice, breach of the Agreement and MOU. | FCI/FLRA: Article 18 unambiguously permits reassignment/augmentation; award conflicts with contract. | Held: FLRA set aside the award as not drawing its essence from the Agreement; the court did not review the merits because of lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether alternate bases (Leedom/Customs Service) or FLRA’s Steelworkers discussion confer reviewability | AFGE: Leedom/Customs Service or FLRA’s Steelworkers discussion supply a path for review. | FLRA: Leedom is inapplicable to the court of appeals; Customs Service is distinguishable; Steelworkers citation alone is insufficient. | Held: Alternate bases fail; Leedom does not apply here and other arguments do not establish jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overseas Educ. Ass'n v. FLRA, 824 F.2d 61 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (establishes two‑track scheme and that § 7123 review requires the Authority decision to "involve" a ULP)
- United States Dep't of the Interior v. FLRA, 26 F.3d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Authority decision framed as contract dispute—no ULP involvement; no jurisdiction)
- Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, N.Y. State Council v. FLRA, 507 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (mere passing reference to a ULP is insufficient for § 7123 review)
- United States Dept. of the Navy v. FLRA, 665 F.3d 1339 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (contrast where contract provided no ground and Authority decision necessarily implicated a statutory ULP)
- Federal Bureau of Prisons v. FLRA (BOP I), 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (contract interpretation precedent cited by FLRA)
- United States Dep't of Justice v. FLRA (BOP II), 875 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (further precedent on Article 18 interpretation cited by FLRA)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (one of the Steelworkers trilogy on arbitral‑award review)
- Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958) (extraordinary jurisdictional/Leedom claim discussed and deemed inapplicable to court of appeals)