In order to cut down on overtime costs, the BOP in 2004 reconfigured the way it makes duty assignments. Under the new policy, more guards are assigned to relief positions instead of set duty assignments. This makes more relief guards available to cover “mission critical” assignments when other staff call in sick or take vacation.
The guards’ challenged the new policy, arguing that it was inconsistent with their collective bargaining agreement with the BOP. An arbitrator upheld the guards’ challenge. The BOP then petitioned for review of the arbitration decision with the D.C. Circuit. The court of appeals reversed.
According go the court of appeals, “the parties reached an agreement about how and when management would exercise its right to assign work, the implementation of those procedures, and the resulting impact, do not give rise to a further duty to bargain.” See: Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 10-1089 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
|Cite||No. 10-1089 (D.C. Cir. 2011)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|