U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, Nos. 844
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before KAUFMAN, TIMBERS and MESKILL; MESKILL |
| Citation | 792 F.2d 25 |
| Parties | 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2499 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons (Washington, D.C.) and Federal Correctional Institution (Danbury, Connecticut), Petitioners, Cross-Respondents, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner. ockets 85-4167, 85-4179. |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 844,922,D |
Page 25
Justice Bureau of Prisons (Washington, D.C.) and
Federal Correctional Institution
(Danbury, Connecticut),
Petitioners, Cross-Respondents,
v.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.
Second Circuit.
Decided May 30, 1986.
Page 26
Mark B. Stern, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., William Kanter, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for petitioners.
Robert J. Englehart, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C. (Ruth E. Peters, Solicitor, Steven H. Svartz, Deputy Solicitor, William E. Persina, Associate Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before KAUFMAN, TIMBERS and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
MESKILL, Circuit Judge:
This is a petition of the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C. (the agency) to review and set aside the September 10, 1985 order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority ("FLRA" or "the Authority") and a cross-petition of the FLRA for enforcement of its order. The order followed an FLRA determination that the agency's refusal to comply with a final and binding arbitration award violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1111 (1978) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7101-7135 (1982 & Supp. II 1984) (the Statute), and thus constituted an unfair labor practice under relevant provisions of the Statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7116(a)(1) and (8). The FLRA ordered compliance with the award.
The case grew out of a dispute over whether the lunch periods of certain Physician Assistants (PAs) at the Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut (FCI) were "duty free" and were thus properly uncompensated or whether overtime pay was earned pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Prison Locals, AFL-CIO, Local 1661 (the union), which represented the PAs, filed a grievance to secure fifteen minutes of overtime pay only to be met with a scheduling change affecting lunch hours which would end the need for overtime pay. The union then filed a second grievance alleging that the new lunch hours were not "duty free" because of an "on call" requirement and took both grievances to arbitration. The arbitrator found that the lunch hour was not "duty free," prescribed the resumption of straight eight hour shifts for the morning and evening shifts and stated that properly submitted requests for overtime compensation should be honored.
The Bureau of Prisons filed exceptions to the award with the Authority. 5 U.S.C.
Page 27
Sec. 7122(a). It argued that the arbitrator had misconstrued the parties' agreement and that her interpretation of the agreement was contrary to the parties' intent and to federal pay statutes, in particular, the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5542(a) (1982) (provision for overtime pay).The Authority denied the exceptions to the award. Then, at the direction of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C., the FCI determined that as a condition precedent to reimbursement for back pay, the PAs had to certify that they had been "required to ... provide assistance during the lunch period," J.App. at 4, not just that they were "on call." The union and the Authority then filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the United States Department of Justice claiming violations of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8). They alleged that the agency failed to comply with the terms of the arbitration award by requiring certification and that the agency had refused to bargain in good faith with the union. They further alleged that the agency had failed to comply with the provisions of section 7122(b) of the Statute in that (1) FCI had failed to comply with a final and binding arbitration award, and (2) the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons had directed FCI to engage in noncompliance.
The case was submitted to the Authority on a stipulated record. The Authority held first that the arbitrator's award was final and binding within the meaning of section 7122(b) and that the Bureau of Prison's certification requirement violated the meaning and intent of the award. The Authority dismissed the complaint as to the Department of Justice because it found no direct liability on its part. It dismissed the complaint as to FCI on the basis that it was merely an agent for the Bureau of Prisons. It concluded that the Bureau of Prisons alone had interfered with FCI's ability to comply with the award in violation of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7116(a)(1) and (8) and ordered the Bureau of Prisons to cease and desist from ordering FCI to refuse implementation of the award and to comply with the arbitral award. The agency asks us to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, AFL-CI
...to judicial review unless an unfair labor practice was a necessary ground for the decision. See U.S. Department of Justice v. FLRA, 792 F.2d 25 (2d Cir.1986); U.S. Marshals Service v. FLRA, 708 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir.1983); Tonetti v. FLRA, 776 F.2d 929 (11th Cir.1985). Even if a violation of C......
-
Griffith v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 86-5720
...unfair labor practices. Overseas Education Ass'n v. FLRA, 824 F.2d 61, 63-69 (D.C.Cir.1987); United States Dept. of Justice v. FLRA, 792 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1986); Tonetti v. FLRA, 776 F.2d 929, 931 (11th Cir.1985); AFGE, Local 1923 v. FLRA, 675 F.2d 612, 613 (4th To be sure, Congress did n......
-
Niles v. Wilshire Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 09–CV–3638 (JFB)(ARL).
...court not to be overbroad where the litigant maintains the ability to assert a meritorious claim with prior court approval. See Safir, 792 F.2d at 25. Accordingly, the undersigned reports and recommends that the district court impose a filing injunction on plaintiffs prohibiting plaintiffs ......
-
U.S. v. Peterson, Docket No. 03-1454.
...hear a particular appeal only when that appeal is authorized by statute. United States Dep't of Justice v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 792 F.2d 25, 27 (2d Cir.1986). Three statutes potentially authorize the government's appeal in this case: 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), which permits the governme......
-
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, AFL-CI
...to judicial review unless an unfair labor practice was a necessary ground for the decision. See U.S. Department of Justice v. FLRA, 792 F.2d 25 (2d Cir.1986); U.S. Marshals Service v. FLRA, 708 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir.1983); Tonetti v. FLRA, 776 F.2d 929 (11th Cir.1985). Even if a violation of C......
-
Griffith v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 86-5720
...unfair labor practices. Overseas Education Ass'n v. FLRA, 824 F.2d 61, 63-69 (D.C.Cir.1987); United States Dept. of Justice v. FLRA, 792 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.1986); Tonetti v. FLRA, 776 F.2d 929, 931 (11th Cir.1985); AFGE, Local 1923 v. FLRA, 675 F.2d 612, 613 (4th To be sure, Congress did n......
-
Niles v. Wilshire Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 09–CV–3638 (JFB)(ARL).
...court not to be overbroad where the litigant maintains the ability to assert a meritorious claim with prior court approval. See Safir, 792 F.2d at 25. Accordingly, the undersigned reports and recommends that the district court impose a filing injunction on plaintiffs prohibiting plaintiffs ......
-
U.S. v. Peterson, Docket No. 03-1454.
...hear a particular appeal only when that appeal is authorized by statute. United States Dep't of Justice v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 792 F.2d 25, 27 (2d Cir.1986). Three statutes potentially authorize the government's appeal in this case: 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), which permits the governme......