U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Correctional Complex Coleman v. FLRA
16-1301
| D.C. Cir. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- FCC Coleman (four institutions) and AFGE negotiated a Master Agreement (1998) whose Article 18 governs assignment procedures and relief rosters (sick/annual relief).
- In 2009 the Bureau implemented a consolidated, complex-wide relief roster assigning officers inter-institutionally; it prioritized home-institution use when possible.
- The Union protested and filed an unfair labor practice charge after the Agency ceased bargaining; the parties had entered a 2010 Settlement Agreement to negotiate arrangements but the settlement did not amend the Master Agreement or require agreement-to-agree.
- The FLRA concluded Article 18 did not cover inter-institutional consolidated rosters and found the Agency unlawfully refused to bargain.
- The Agency petitioned for review, arguing BOP I controls and that Article 18’s assignment procedures cover specific outcomes like consolidated rosters.
- The D.C. Circuit held that consolidated relief rosters are covered by Article 18 and reversed the FLRA; the Settlement Agreement did not change the covered-by analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consolidated, inter‑institutional relief rosters are "covered by" the Master Agreement (Article 18) | Union: Article 18 addresses only procedures and not substantive outcomes like inter‑institutional assignments, so Agency must bargain | Agency: Article 18’s assignment procedures cover implementation and outcomes; BOP I controls, precluding further bargaining | Held for Agency: Article 18 covers and preempts challenges to specific assignment outcomes, including consolidated rosters |
| Relevance of parties' subjective contemplation of consolidated rosters when signing the Master Agreement | Union: Parties did not contemplate consolidated rosters; intent to foreclose bargaining lacking | Agency: Coverage depends on reasonable construction of the agreement, not on whether parties foresaw the specific outcome | Held for Agency: Whether parties foresaw the outcome is irrelevant; construction favors stability and repose of agreements |
| Effect of the 2010 Settlement Agreement to bargain over consolidated rosters | Union/FLRA: Settlement’s language showing parties bargained supports finding obligation to bargain | Agency: Settlement did not amend Master Agreement and only provided reinstatement remedy if negotiations failed; it does not change coverage | Held for Agency: Settlement does not alter the Master Agreement or defeat covered‑by analysis |
| Mootness given a 2014 Master Agreement | FLRA/Union suggested new agreement might moot relief | Agency argued relief (cease-and-desist and posting) keeps case live | Held: Case not moot — Authority’s remedial order could still afford relief; judicial resolution remains necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Bureau of Prisons v. FLRA, 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Article 18’s procedures cover and preempt challenges to specific assignment outcomes)
- Dep’t of the Navy v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (covered‑by doctrine protects implementation outcomes within negotiated procedures)
- Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 452 F.3d 793 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (whether a subject is covered by an agreement is a question of law; construction favors contractual repose)
- NLRB v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563 (1950) (compliance with a cease-and-desist order does not render case moot)
- Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. FLRA (Department of the Air Force), 735 F.2d 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (remedial orders serve continuing protection and can prevent future violations)