BP-S176.037 FORMAL GRIEVANCE FORM CDFRM MAY 94
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON
1. Grievant(s)Class Action, Council Grievance / 2. Duty Station
Bureau of Prisons
3. Representative of Grievant(s)
Michael Meserve
Western Regional Vice President, CPL33 / 4. Informal resolution attempted with (name Person)
Robert McFadden, Western Regional Director
Kim White, Assistant Director, Human Resource Management Division
5. Federal Prison System Directive, Executive Order, or Statute violated (but not limited to):
Master Agreement: Preamble, ¶6
Master Agreement: Article 4 - Relationship of this Agreement to Bureau Policies, Regulations, and Practices, Section b.
Master Agreement: Article 6 - Rights of the Employee, Section b. (2.)
Master Agreement: Article 7 - Rights of the Union, Section b.,
Master Agreement: Article 18 - Hours of Work, Section e.
Any other applicable law, rule or regulation
6. In what way were each of the above violated? Be specific.
See Attachment A
7. Date(s) of violation(s)
November 7th, 2011, and continuous (ongoing)
8. Request remedy (i.e., what you want done)
The Union is requesting an immediate cease and desist regarding the determined actions of the agency enumerated above, and a status quo continuance of the long held interpretation of the Master Agreement, Article 18, Section (e) within all regions of the Bureau of Prisons.
That all forms of harm to the members of the Bargaining Unit caused by the Agency’s implementation of the disputed contract language interpretation be mitigated, and that a status quo ante remedy be immediately applied.
That any employee harmed by the violations enumerated above either be made whole, or the closest equivalent to such.
That all appropriate legal fees and expenses incurred in the processing of this grievance be reimbursed by the agency.
That neither the grievant(s), nor the representative(s) in this matter, suffer any form of reprisal, harassment, or intimidation from the Employer as a result of the filing of this grievance.
In addition, the Union is requesting any other sanctions and or remedies deemed necessary or reasonable by an arbitrator, or any other third party.
9. Person with whom filed
Thomas Kane / 10. Title
Director (Acting) Bureau of Prisons
11. Signature of recipient / 12.Date signed
I hereby certify that efforts at informal resolution have been unsuccessful.
13.Signature of Grievant(s)
Class Action Council Grievance / 14. Signature of Representative
12/16/2011
Record Copy - Agency; Copy - Union Local; Copy - Council of Prison Locals; Copy - Grievant
This form replaces BP-176(37) Dated October 1984.
Attachment A
6. In what way were each of the above violated? Be specific.
By treating the word ‘expected’ as mandatory language, and causing drastic changes to the post/assignment bidding process, the Bureau of Prisons, and specifically the Western and South Central Regions of the Bureau of Prisons, violated the Preamble of the Master Agreement:, paragraph 6, which states, “This Agreement and such supplementary agreements and memorandums of understanding by both parties as may be agreed upon hereunder from time to time, together constitute a collective agreement between the Agency and the Union.”
Assistant Director, Kim White, and the Council of Prison Locals signed agreed upon minutes from a National Labor Management Relations meeting (LMR)held on August 25-26, 2010, that stated in relation to the ‘three year rotation “This process should be ongoing for the entire three year cycle, and not require implementing drastic changes at the end of the three year cycle in order to require all staff to rotate through all three primary shifts.” and the agency agreed to disseminate the information above to all Regions and institutions.
The language of the August 25-26, 2010, LMR Minutes, agreed upon and signed by both parties, constitutes a supplementary agreement.
By changing, in many institutions within the Western and South Central Regions, the long standing practice throughout the Bureau of considering the word ‘expected’ as non-mandatory language, the Bureau of Prisons, and specifically the Western and South Central Regions of the Bureau of Prisons, violated Article 4 - Relationship of this Agreement to Bureau Policies, Regulations, and Practices, Section b of the Master Agreement, which states, “On matters which are not covered in supplemental agreements at the local level, all written benefits, or practices and understandings between the parties implementing this Agreement, which are negotiable, shall not be changed unless agreed to in writing by the parties.”
No such written agreement was reached between the Agency and the Union to interpret the word ‘expected’ as mandatory language
By failing to interpret the meaning of the word ‘expected’ in a consistent and uniform way agency-wide, the Bureau of Prisons, and specifically the Western and South Central Regions of the Bureau of Prisons, violated Article 6 - Rights of the Employee, Section b. (2.) of the Master Agreement, which states, “The parties agree that there will be no restraint, harassment, intimidation, reprisal, or any coercion against any employee in the exercise of any employee rights provided for in this Agreement and any other applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including the right… to be treated fairly and equitably in all aspects of personnel management”
Other Regions of the Bureau of Prisons did not have any issues with changes in the interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘expected’, had no drastic changes at the end of the three year cycle, and therefore had caused no undue hardship to Bargaining Unit Employees. The fact that the actions of the Agency were not evenly applied caused disparate treatment of employees and such treatment was neither fair nor equitable.
By failing to notify the Union of their plans to consider the word ‘expected’ as mandatory language, and therefore, denying the Union the opportunity to bargain over this change in the interpretation of contractual language, the Bureau of Prisons, and specifically the Western and South Central Regions of the Bureau of Prisons, violated Article 7 - Rights of the Union, Section b. of the Master Agreement, which states, “In all matters relating to personnel policies, practices, and other conditions of employment, the Employer will adhere to the obligations imposed on it by the statute and this Agreement. This includes, in accordance with applicable laws and this Agreement, the obligation to notify the Union of any changes in conditions of employment, and provide the Union the opportunity to negotiate concerning the procedures which Management will observe in exercising its authority in accordance with the Federal Labor Management Statute.”
By denying some employees the right to select their preferred assignment, shift, and days off by seniority, the Bureau of Prisons, and specifically the Western and South Central Regions of the Bureau of Prisons, violated Article 18, Sections d.(2)(a.) and (d.); and e., which state, “employees may submit preference requests for assignment, shift, and days off, or any combination thereof” and, “the roster committee will consider preference requests in order of seniority and will make reasonable efforts to grant such requests. Reasonable efforts means that Management will not arbitrarily deny such requests.” and, “Nothing in this article is intended to limit an employee from requesting and remaining in a preferred shift for up to one (1) year.”
12/16/2011 10:23 PM