United States Department of Justice v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
875 F.3d 667
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- FCC Coleman is a four‑institution prison complex; a 1998 Master Agreement between the Bureau and AFGE Local 506 contained Article 18 governing assignment procedures, including sick and annual relief rosters.
- In 2009 the Agency moved to consolidate the four institutions’ sick/annual relief rosters into a single complex‑wide roster allowing inter‑institutional assignments.
- The Union objected and filed unfair labor practice charges after the Agency terminated intermittent bargaining; the parties entered a 2010 Settlement Agreement to resume negotiations (which preserved reinstatement of the ULP if talks failed).
- After this Court decided Fed. Bureau of Prisons v. FLRA (BOP I), the Agency ceased bargaining, asserting Article 18 covered the consolidated relief rosters; the FLRA majority disagreed and found a duty to bargain.
- The Agency petitioned for review in this Court, arguing BOP I controls and that consolidated rosters fall within Article 18’s scope; the Court granted the petition and reversed the FLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consolidated relief rosters are "covered by" Article 18 of the Master Agreement | Article 18 addresses only procedures and did not contemplate inter‑institutional consolidated rosters, so Agency must bargain over the change | Article 18 sets negotiated procedures for assignments; implementation of those procedures (including consolidated rosters) is covered and precludes further bargaining | Consolidated relief rosters are covered by Article 18; no duty to bargain further (reversal of FLRA) |
| Whether the parties’ subjective contemplation at contract formation controls covered‑by analysis | The parties did not contemplate consolidated rosters when negotiating, so the subject is not covered | Coverage depends on whether the disputed subject falls within the compass of the agreement, not whether the parties foresaw the specific outcome | Court rejects reliance on what parties specifically contemplated; scope is an objective construction question favoring contractual repose |
| Whether the 2010 Settlement Agreement defeated the covered‑by defense | Settlement, which provided for bargaining over arrangements, shows parties intended to negotiate the consolidated roster matter | Settlement did not amend the Master Agreement and merely preserved the right to reinstate the ULP; it does not alter Article 18’s scope | Settlement does not change covered‑by analysis; it did not concede Article 18’s inapplicability |
| Mootness given a subsequent 2014 Master Agreement | New agreement might moot FLRA’s remedial order | The FLRA order (cease/desist and posting) addresses continuing rights and relief and the petition affects live controversy | Case not moot; Court reaches merits and reverses FLRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Bureau of Prisons v. FLRA, 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Article 18 covers and preempts challenges to specific outcomes of assignment procedures)
- Dep't of the Navy v. FLRA, 962 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (covered‑by analysis must protect contractual repose; coverage may include implementation outcomes not specifically foreseen)
- Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union v. FLRA, 452 F.3d 793 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (whether a subject is covered by an agreement is a legal question; construction, not narrow interpretation, governs)
- Enloe Med. Ctr. v. NLRB, 433 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (distinguishes waiver from covered‑by: coverage reflects parties having bargained the subject)
- NLRB v. Mexia Textile Mills, 339 U.S. 563 (1950) (cease and desist orders preserve live controversies and enforcement even after changed circumstances)
- FLRA v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 735 F.2d 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (remedial orders protect continuing employee rights and prevent future violations)