Region 7 Wins Labor Board Decision Confirming Federal Bureau of Prisons Contractors Subject to NLRA

Detroit, Michigan — On April 30, 2021, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor of Region 7 in Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC and Local 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Ernie Ahmad (370 NLRB No. 117). In Bannum, a private contractor working with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sought to dismiss the charges filed against it by asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to its connection with the BOP. The initial complaint against the employer for violating employees’ Section 7 rights was issued by the Director of Region 7 on October 22, 2019. 

On May 29, 2020, Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron ruled that Bannum did fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act and had unlawfully discharged one employee because of his support for the Union and because he attended a pre-election hearing conducted by the Regional Office; discharged another employee because of his support for the Union; interfered in employees’ Section 7 rights, and unlawfully interrogated and threatened employees.

The Board, in determining the facts on its merits,  found Bannum in violation of the Act and ordered it to remedy and make whole the two discriminatees, including reinstatement and backpay. The Employer was also  required to post a notice  informing other employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 

The Board also affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the case as Bannum’s joint-employer claim was considered and rejected in the earlier representation-case proceeding. The Board’s Rules and Regulations preclude the re-litigation of that issue in any subsequent unfair labor practice. 

“Workers have a fundamental right to unionize and join together in the workplace,” said Region 7 Regional Director Terry A. Morgan. “I’m proud of my staff for defending the workers whose rights had been violated and glad the Board agreed that the employer violated the Act.”