Union alleges Bureau of Prisons in contempt for failing to reinstate collective bargaining agreement
Union Alleges Bureau of Prisons Defied Court Order
Wertynews.com – The union alleges Bureau of Prisons officials failed to restore a collective bargaining agreement after a federal judge ordered the agency to reinstate it. The National Council of Prison Locals, which represents about 30,000 Bureau of Prisons employees, is seeking a contempt finding against the agency.
The union filed its request on Oct. 6, shortly after U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Bureau of Prisons to immediately restore the agreement. The dispute concerns whether the agency has taken the practical steps needed to return labor relations to their previous terms.
Union Cites Lost Access and Representation
According to the contempt motion, prison officials have not restored official time for union duties, union office space, or representation for employees in disciplinary matters. The union argues that these measures are necessary for the court’s injunction to have a meaningful effect.
“Defendants’ noncompliance is total,” the union’s attorneys said, alleging that officials had not taken the specific actions needed to reinstate the agreement.
The filing describes an employee who requested assistance from a shop steward during a meeting connected to a possible termination. A Bureau of Prisons official allegedly denied that request, telling the employee that there was no union. The employee was terminated on Oct. 5, according to the motion and a sworn statement.
At FCI Mendota, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1237 said management had locked union officials out of their office space. The local represents employees at that federal correctional institution.
How the Collective Bargaining Dispute Began
Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall terminated the collective bargaining agreement on Sept. 25, 2025. The agreement, which was scheduled to expire in May 2028, had governed labor relations for agency employees.
Marshall called the union an “obstacle to progress” when announcing the termination. The National Council of Prison Locals then sought emergency relief in federal court, arguing that the agency’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judge Oliver granted a preliminary injunction on Sept. 29, finding that the union was likely to succeed on that claim. The order required the agency to restore the agreement while the underlying lawsuit continues, but it did not resolve the case permanently.
Government Says It Is Following the Order
The Bureau of Prisons declined to comment on the contempt allegations because the case remains pending. The Justice Department has not asked the court to pause the injunction and filed a notice on Oct. 2 stating that the agency was complying with the order.
However, the government offered a narrower interpretation of the ruling. It said the injunction did not bar the Bureau of Prisons from attempting to end the agreement again before its May 2028 expiration date. The Justice Department also indicated that it did not expect the court to supervise every alleged violation of the agreement.
The union alleges Bureau of Prisons leaders have taken the opposite approach in practice, leaving employees without the workplace protections and representation they had before the agreement was terminated. The court will now decide whether the agency’s actions amount to contempt of its order.
FAQ: What Does the Case Mean for Federal Prison Employees?
What is a preliminary injunction?
A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued while a lawsuit is still being decided. In this case, it required the Bureau of Prisons to restore the collective bargaining agreement during the litigation.
What would a contempt finding mean?
A contempt finding could mean that a judge concludes the agency did not follow the injunction. The court could then order steps to enforce compliance, although the available remedies would be determined by the judge.
Does the injunction settle the lawsuit?
No. The injunction is an early ruling based on the judge’s view that the union was likely to succeed on its claim. The broader legal challenge remains unresolved.