BP-S176.037
MAY 1994
FORMAL GRIEVANCE FORM
CDFRM
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1.Grievent(s)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
2.Duty Station:
Local3.Representative of Grievance(s)
4. Informal resolution attempted with
5, U.S.C 7116, Master Agreement, Master
Agreement Article 3,6, 9, 27 MOU dated 10-15-10, 8-18-11, 10-11-07, 11-8-07, settlement Agreement dated 6-1311,but not limited to any other Federal Codes, Rules, Laws and Regulations.
5.Federal Prison system Directive, Executive Order, Statute violation:
6. In what way were each of the above violated? Be specific.
On July 17, 2013 the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Agency) unilaterally implemented the policy title Staff Entrance
and Search Procedures (Staff Search policy). The Agency’s unilateral implementation of the staff search policy
violates, separately and independently, the Statute and the parties’ collectively bargained agreements (referenced
above). The Agency implemented the staff search policy prior to the completion of National Policy negotiation on
staff search.
On August 2, 2013 the Union timely filed the request for the Agency’s position on whether the proposals that were
outstanding concerning the staff search policy are within the scope of bargaining. On August 9, 2013 the Union
received the Agency response to the Union request on whether the Union 5 remaining proposals were in the scope of
bargaining.
On August 14, 2013 the Union timely filed the Union negotiability appeal. The Collective Bargaining Agreement
does not allow implementation of National Policy locally until such disputes are completed at the National Level.
Article 9 (b) (5) which states any matter which the parties at the national level have presented to the Federal Labor
Relations Authority (FLRA) or the Federal Service impasses Panel (FSIP) may not be negotiated at the local level
until such time as decisions are rendered and/or the parties at the national level have resolved the dispute. The
agency is well aware of these disputes invoked by the National Council over the five (5) remaining proposals and a
repudiation of the October 15, 2010 and August 18, 2011 agreement.
Whereas the Local Union is barred from negotiating locally per the Master Agreement on matters that are in dispute
at the National Level, the Local Union is put in an unfair position based on the Agency unliterary implementation.
The current staff search procedures dated 11-08-07 are the procedures that the parties agreed to until a new
procedure is negotiated. The 10-15-10 agreement clearly was negotiated almost 3 years later refer to the Agency
new staff search.
It states: The parties agree that any instructions or guidance provided to the field location regarding the negotiated
policy for Electronic Search procedures for staff which changes conditions of employment for bargaining unit
staff at the local level, will be negotiated with the union prior to issuance and implementation. The next paragraph
also states immediately after the completion of negotiations on the Electronic search policies.
The 8-18-11 agreement, that is now approximately 4 years after the 11-08-07 agreement, the parties enter into
another agreement which at the time the National Union and the Agency was in negotiation on the policy in
question. This agreement states: (2) The policy will be modified to include procedures for: conducting reasonable
suspicion searches of staff: documenting such searches; and detention and arrest of staff (“the procedures). The
next section (3) states: the Agency will provide the Union specific text insertions and deletions related only to the
procedures referenced above.
Clearly there is a national dispute, and with these agreements signed leading up to and during the negotiation of the
policy in question. It is clear that the policy intent was Electronic Searches and the procedures on reasonable
suspicion searches. The authority to order a reasonable suspicion search and what it can be conducted is outlined in
Program Statement 3420.09 titled Employee Code of Conduct Policy. However the procedures on how it will be
conducted are in the staff search policy that this dispute is over as stated above.
Locally (this is a template I do not know what is happening at your institution however I am putting something I was
told) the Agency has unilaterally implemented procedures that violate the Electronic procedures like having staff
place food items that can clear the metal detector through the x-ray machine. Other items like jackets, hats, nonmetal belts, etc. The Agency is stating that they will be having bargaining unit staff pat search staff without
reasonable suspicion or where circumstances may warrant. The Agency is stating that they will unilaterally
implement Post Assignment that are gender specific and violates our contractual agreement and may also be a nexus
to Title VII violations and related EEO issue.
The Agency’s new unilateral procedures will require two staff members (1 male/1female) to pat search staff of the
same sex. This institution has male and female staff. Whereas we the Agency still refuse to have two staff members
in the housing unit where our members are being assaulted and Killed by inmates with one officer in the Unit.
The Agency is violating the 11-08-07 agreement that is not rescinded until the completion of staff search policy. The
parties’ contract in Article 6 (n) has provided how employees will be removed from a BOP facility in a discrete
manner. The Agency’s procedure of having employees removed in the front lobby does not constitute a discrete
manner.
The Agency is violating program Statement 3420.09 which states that the Bureau of Prisons does not routinely
search employees or their property unless the CEO has reasonable suspicion. If the electronic searches of staff
(MOU dates 11-8-07) is rescinded, then program statement 3420.09 prevails. It states the BOP does not routinely
search staff by any means unless there is reasonable suspicion. The Union has agreed in the 11-8-07 agreement that
electronic searches are needed in case an employee inadvertently has their authorized personal weapon, which is
authorize to carry off duty because of their employment with the Agency. Electronic searches catch those weapons
and allow removal with minimal risk to all parties.
This policy does not require bargaining unit staff to pat search other bargaining unit staff. Only a trained supervisor
can conduct such investigation and bargaining unit employees are entitled to a Union Representative when a pat
search is being conducted per this policy. The agreement made by the Union and the Agency is located on page 8 of
the policy in question which states: Before conducting reasonable suspicion searches of any type covered by this
policy, bargaining unit staff are entitled to request a Union representative. The last sentence of the same paragraph
states: All searches shall comply with the objectives outlined in Section 1(f) of this policy. (I am not adding this to
the grievance makes sure to take out, This is for you the grievance writer. Please look at Section 1 (j) this is where
your Fourth Amendment rights and any agreements stated above and any you may have at your institution may
come into play). This unwarranted investigation is intrusive and may reveal personal medication for which the
employees do not have a need to know or lead to discipline of the employee.
*** If any part of this grievance is unclear contact (put your name) *******
7.Date(s)
of violation(s) July 17, 2013 & continuous
8.Request remedy (i.e., what you want done) All
attorney, legal fees and expenses incurred in the processing this grievance
will be reimbursed by the agency. That a cease and desist orders are issued to against the agency from further action
of this nature, Issue an Order of Status Quo Ante, all policies implemented in violation of the MOU be rescinded.
The agency received a posting. The Union will suffer no reprisal, harassment, or intimidation, as a result of filling
this grievance. Staff search policy is completely rescinded and reissued per the contract. The Agency be required to
follow the contract. That suitable compensation is granted and any other remedy the arbitrator deems appropriate to
make the employees or union whole.
9.Person with whom filed
10.Title
11.Signature of recipient
12.Date signed
I hereby certify that efforts at informal resolution have been unsuccessful.
13.Signature of Grievent(s)
14.Signature of Representative
Record Copy - Agency; Copy - Union Local; Copy - Council of prison Locals; Copy - Grievant
(This form may be replicated via WP)
This form replaces BP-176(37) Dated October 1994