midpage
Sign in to see your projects.
647 F.3d 359
D.C. Cir.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • CBP changed local work assignments for inspectors by implementing the RNIAP, replacing the NIAP, without local bargaining.
  • NIAP previously required local bargaining over workweek length, hours, staffing, and days off; RNIAP allowed unilateral changes to meet operational needs.
  • Union proposed merging RNIAP negotiations with a renegotiation of a expired collective bargaining agreement; CBP declined.
  • Union sought mediation and panel relief; the Impasses Panel declined jurisdiction; CBP implemented RNIAP in late 2004/2005.
  • Union filed a grievance alleging unfair labor practice; arbitrator ruled for the Union; FLRA affirmed; petition for review followed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Is the RNIAP a collective bargaining agreement thus covered-by doctrine applies? NTEU asserts RNIAP not a CBA; covered-by doctrine should bind. CBP argues RNIAP forms a CBA through impasses/assent doctrines and is covered. RNIAP not a collective bargaining agreement; covered-by doctrine inapplicable.
Did CBP have a duty to bargain over changes under the RNIAP as conditions/working conditions? Changes affected bargaining unit and working conditions, triggering bargaining duty. Only policy changes to conditions of employment trigger bargaining; some changes exceed that. Authority properly required bargaining over procedures and arrangements; changes affected working conditions.

Key Cases Cited

  • NTEU v. FLRA, Chapter 137, 60 F.L.R.A. 487 (2004) (RNIAP not a collective bargaining agreement)
  • NTEU v. FLRA, Chapter 143, 60 F.L.R.A. 922 (2005) (authority on bargaining obligations; not essential to result)
  • U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Customs & Border Prot., 64 F.L.R.A. 989 (2010) (RNIAP not a CBA; covered-by doctrine discussed)
  • Antilles Consol. Educ. Ass'n, 22 F.L.R.A. 235 (1986) (two-pronged test for working conditions matters)
  • Fort Stewart Schs. v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641 (1990) (broad interpretation of working conditions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs & Border Protection v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date Published: Aug 12, 2011
Citations: 647 F.3d 359; 191 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2455; 396 U.S. App. D.C. 244; 2011 WL 3518162; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16805; 10-1282
Docket Number: 10-1282
Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.
Log In