A federal union representing over 30,000 Bureau of Prisons employees is suing the agency over its recent cancellation of the BOP’s collective bargaining agreement.

The lawsuit, filed last week by the American Federation of Government Employees’ Council of Prisons Locals 33, alleged that the agency’s decision to cancel the union contract violated First Amendment rights, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

The union argued that BOP Director William K. Marshall III’s Sept. 25 announcement ending the labor-management agreement “made clear” that the contract was not canceled due to President Donald Trump’s executive orders, or for “national security” purposes. Instead, the union alleged that it was a form of retaliation, and that the agency did not follow required procedures in its actions.

The union is asking for an injunction to reverse the collective bargaining agreement’s cancellation at BOP.

An AFGE official, speaking anonymously for fear of professional retaliation, said the intention of the new lawsuit “is to protect our members and advocate for them the way we always have.”

“Our agency was status quo for months — then just decided out of nowhere that this union is a roadblock,” the official said. “Especially in law enforcement, you need protections in place. You need a union to be able to help these staff through these situations. That, to me, is our biggest driving force. We just want to be there to protect our people.”

A spokesperson for the BOP declined Federal News Network’s request for comment, stating that the agency does not comment on pending litigation or ongoing legal proceedings. The spokesperson instead directed to Marshall’s initial September announcement for information.

In the September announcement, Marshall said the decision to cancel the contract was “to make [employees’] lives better,” while adding that AFGE had become “an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it.”

“[The union contract] didn’t give you your protections, the law did, and Bureau policy continues them,” Marshall said in September. “This isn’t about taking things away, it’s about giving you more.”

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders, calling on most agencies to cancel their union contracts and terminate collective bargaining for broad swaths of federal employees.

Although Trump’s orders made use of a narrow legal provision that lets a president suspend collective bargaining for “national security” purposes, BOP’s announcement in September made no direct mention of national security.

The union said in its new lawsuit that there was no “reasoned explanation” for ending the BOP contract, in effect a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the union alleged that BOP failed to consider alternatives to the contract’s cancellation, as well as the interests of union members by “suddenly pulling the plug on union protections.”

The lawsuit also argued that the contract termination violated the First Amendment, which prohibits agency officials from retaliating against either individuals or organizations based on their protected speech.

As a result of the contract’s termination, BOP employees “have become even more hesitant than they were already to engage in activity that is or could be perceived as being contrary to policies of the Trump administration,” the union wrote.

More broadly, AFGE is suing the Trump administration over the president’s pair of executive orders and several agencies’ subsequent actions ending collective bargaining. The BOP lawsuit, in comparison, is more narrowly focused on the timing and manner of BOP’s specific decision to cancel the contract covering bargaining unit employees.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley expressed support for the new and separate lawsuit at BOP.

“Their union contract has provided employees a voice at work to ensure critical protections, including safeguards against unsafe working conditions, unfair discipline and staffing shortages that put both workers and the public at risk,” Kelley said, adding that ending the contract “is a dangerous action that should alarm everyone.”

The legal action also comes as the Protect America’s Workforce Act, a bill to reverse the Trump administration’s efforts to remove union protections, heads toward a House floor vote. If enacted, the legislation would restore collective bargaining for tens of thousands of federal employees.

Many agencies have proceeded with “de-recognizing” their unions, after an appeals court in August granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had previously been preventing agencies from implementing Trump’s anti-union orders.

But in comparison with other agencies’ contract terminations, BOP’s decision was delayed. It took nearly two months following the court decision before the agency moved forward with ending the agreement. Originally, the contract was set to expire May 28, 2029.

The contract laid out policies for employees on overtime, shift work, sick leave and safety requirements, as well as procedural protections for employees during reduction-in-force proceedings. The agreement also secured limitations on disciplinary actions, and set standards around official time, and grievance and arbitration procedures.

“The [collective bargaining agreement] was the product of years of negotiations to safeguard essential rights for bargaining unit members,” the union’s lawsuit stated.

During the two months prior to the contract’s cancellation, the union said the agency appeared to be upholding the contract’s policies, for example by holding labor-management relations meetings, and maintaining space for union officials on-site — but then moved to terminate the contract “effective immediately,” with little notice to union officials.

In his September announcement, Marshall stated that canceling the contract would not have any impact on job security, pay, benefits or safety for correctional officers.

But union officials said there were issues “almost immediately” after the collective bargaining agreement was ended. For instance, the union is now no longer able to represent employees when there are workplace issues, such as an instance of alleged harassment on the job. Prior to the contract’s cancellation, union officials would speak with BOP leaders and work to conduct an assessment or investigation into any issues that arose.

“The union typically walks you through the process, helps you respond, helps you through the investigation,” a union official said. “But we’re not there — and these staff don’t know what they can and can’t do, because we’ve always been there.”

The post BOP union seeks restoration of collective bargaining through new lawsuit first appeared on Federal News Network.

The Senate’s initial agreement toward ending the longest-ever government shutdown includes provisions that would secure back pay for all federal employees, as well as reverse the Trump administration’s recent reductions in force.

Though much is still up in the air and subject to possible changes, the early steps in the process indicate that, if the Senate bill’s current language is maintained, both excepted and furloughed federal employees would receive back pay dating to Oct. 1, the day the shutdown began.

Federal employees, regardless of whether they are furloughed or excepted, have always received back pay following every past shutdown, due to one-time actions from Congress. It wasn’t until 2019 that Congress passed — and President Donald Trump signed — a law meant to ensure federal employees are compensated retroactively for all shutdowns going forward.

Questions over back pay arose once again, however, after the Office of Management and Budget released a draft legal opinion in October, suggesting that furloughed employees are not automatically ensured back pay after all.

Many lawmakers, attorneys and unions harshly criticized the White House’s opinion, calling it a clear misinterpretation of the 2019 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act.

Throughout the funding lapse, the Trump administration has shuffled funding to compensate select groups of the federal workforce, as well as military members, while hundreds of thousands of others have missed two paychecks since the shutdown began.

The Senate took the first step toward ending the shutdown on Sunday, clearing a procedural hurdle that required 60 votes to move the spending legislation forward in the appropriations process. All but eight Democrats voted against the spending measure. But an actual end to the shutdown may still be at least several days away.

The current agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of government, including food aid, veterans’ programs and the legislative branch. A continuing resolution would fund most other agency appropriations until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish the additional spending bills.

The Senate’s legislation over the weekend would also compel agencies to reverse all reduction-in-force actions that have taken place since the shutdown began. About 4,200 federal employees across government received RIF notices in mid-October, following guidance from the White House that encouraged agencies to move forward with layoffs in the event of a funding lapse.

Most, but not all, of those RIF actions are currently on hold due to a preliminary injunction granted by a district court judge last month. Federal unions are suing the Trump administration over the layoffs, alleging that they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Senate’s tentative agreement would also temporarily bar the Trump administration from conducting further RIFs until late January.

Federal employee organizations and unions expressed strong support for the provisions to secure back pay for federal employees and protect against RIFs.

“These protections provide for fundamental fairness,” Marcus Hill, president of the Senior Executives Association, said Monday. “They also safeguard continuity of government operations, preserve critical talent, and stabilize and extend funding for missions and services that millions of Americans rely on daily.”

“Millions of federal employees have missed paychecks, forcing them to assume significant financial cost, risk and uncertainty,” William Shackelford, national president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), said. “Government shutdowns — partial as they are — harm dedicated public servants and the missions and people they serve.”

The American Federation of Government Employees threw in additional support for the passage of the Shutdown Fairness Act, a Republican-led bill to pay federal employees immediately during the current government shutdown, as well as any future ones.

“While we are glad that the shutdown is coming to an end for now, we remain concerned about the growing use of government shutdowns as leverage for political gain,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said. “That’s why AFGE strongly supports the bipartisan Shutdown Fairness Act, which would pay federal workers during government shutdowns, ensuring that federal employees will never be used as political pawns again.”

The Shutdown Fairness Act failed to advance in the Senate on Friday. Democrats largely voted down the legislation on the grounds that it did not include guardrails to prevent the Trump administration from paying some federal employees and not others.

After the bill initially failed to move forward two weeks ago, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) expanded his legislation to include furloughed employees and federal contractors. The bill initially only provided immediate pay for excepted employees who continue to work during a shutdown.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The post Tentative Senate deal reaffirms back pay, reverses RIFs for federal employees first appeared on Federal News Network.