Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
397 U.S. App. D.C. 451
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- The Master Agreement (1998) between the Bureau and AFGE Council 33 governs hours, bidding, and posts for federal correctional officers.
- Article 18(d) prescribes a quarterly roster bidding process; Article 18(g) covers relief officers; wardens retain final approval.
- In 2004, after funding shortfalls, the Bureau issued a Vanyur memorandum limiting which posts are considered 'critical' for mission purposes.
- The Union demanded bargaining over implementing the mission critical standard; the Bureau refused, arguing Article 18 covered the matter.
- The Union/grievance proceeded to arbitration, which held the mission critical standard not covered by Article 18 and ordered negotiations on the issue.
- The FLRA affirmed the arbitrator; the Bureau petitioned for review in the DC Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article 18 cover the mission critical standard? | Bureau: Article 18 governs procedures and thus covers impact/implementation. | FLRA: Article 18 is narrow and procedural; mission critical affects staffing more broadly and is not covered. | Article 18 covers and preempts challenges to mission critical outcomes. |
| Is there a separate independent basis to sustain the award under Article 3(d)? | Bureau: No separate contractual basis; arbitration relies on statutory coverage only. | FLRA: Article 3(d) provides an independent bargaining obligation for a national policy issuance. | The independent contractual basis is not required to sustain the award; the statutory basis suffices, and the court rejects the separate basis. |
| Was the arbitrator's remedy consistent with the Act and the Master Agreement? | Bureau: The remedy would impermissibly rewrite Article 18; pre-mission practice should be preserved. | FLRA/Union: Remedy addressed impact and implementation of the change. | The award's remedy was defective and not consistent with the statute and agreement; the matter is vacated and remanded. |
| Did the Authority abuse its discretion in affirming the award given the record on Vanyur memorandum? | Bureau: Record does not establish a binding policy and the memorandum's force is unclear. | FLRA: The memorandum supports the impact/implementation finding. | Authority abused its discretion; vacate and remand to determine the memorandum's effect. |
| Are the additional grounds relied on by the Authority (separate grounds) properly considered? | Bureau: The separate ground is not clearly articulated or separable in the award. | FLRA: The separate ground (Article 3(d)) supports the award. | Court does not need to decide; independent basis rejected; vacatur/remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 452 F.3d 793 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (covers interpretation of 'covered by' in the bargain context; finality in bargaining)
- Dep't of Navy v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (agency bargaining over procedures and impact/implementation of management rights)
- Dep't of Navy v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (scope of impact and implementation bargaining; procedures vs. outcomes)
- Dep't of Navy v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 59 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (finality and stability in collective bargaining; not a starting point for endless negotiation)
- Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 452 F.3d 796 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (how an agreement may cover subjects without exact congruence)