National Park Service, National Capital Region, United States Park Police and Police Association of the District of Columbia (Authority decision, March 31, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses four unfair labor practice complaints over information requests under 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4). An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The Police Association of the District of Columbia requested records for four grievances involving Park Police employees. The National Park Service provided most of the requested information but withheld supervisors' recommendations, concurrences, and opinions about discipline and denied leave. The Authority held that releasing these internal deliberations would interfere with management's rights to discipline employees and assign work. It found that the withheld information was prohibited from disclosure under the statutory information duty and dismissed all four unfair labor practice complaints.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Information duty under 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4) and management rights under § 7106(a)(2).
• Outcome: Four complaints dismissed; no information disclosure ordered.
• Key point: The agency did not have to release internal management deliberations about disciplinary and leave decisions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v26 p441 ]

26:0441(53)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

26 FLRA No. 53

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
NATIONAL CAPITOL REGION,
UNITED STATES PARK POLICE
Respondent

and

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Charging Party

Case Nos. 3-CA-60168
3-CA-60182
3-CA-60183
3-CA-60288

DECISION AND ORDER

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This consolidated unfair labor practice case is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations based upon a stipulation of facts entered into by the Respondent, the Charging Party (the Union), and the General Counsel. The General Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to provide certain information the Charging Party had requested pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.

II. BACKGROUND

The Police Association of the District of Columbia is the exclusive representative of a unit of employees of the United States Park Police. In connection with the Union's processing of four grievances, each of which had been filed on behalf of a different employee, the Union made four requests for information. The Respondent in response to the requests furnished all information requested with the exception of documents or portions of documents containing recommendations, concurrences, or opinions of supervisors or managers concerning the disciplinary actions taken against two of the employees and concerning the denials of the administrative leave requests of the other two employees. The parties stipulated that the information the Respondent failed and refused to furnish is normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business and is reasonably available within the meanings of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. /*/

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The General Counsel argues that the information which the Respondent refused to furnish constitutes information that is necessary and relevant to a matter within the scope of collective bargaining. The General Counsel also argues that the information does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training of management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(C) and that the information is not otherwise excepted from the obligation to furnish information under the Statute. Thus, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the requested data constitutes a refusal to comply with section 7114(b)(4) as alleged in the complaint.

The Respondent argues that the information which it refused to furnish is not necessary and relevant and constitutes guidance, advice, or counsel within the meanings of section 7114(b)(4). The Respondent also argues that the release of the requested information constituting recommendations, concurrences, or opinions of supervisors or managers is prohibited because release of this information would interfere with management's deliberative process concerning the exercise of management rights under section 7106(a) to take disciplinary action and assign work.

IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

We must determine in this case whether the Respondent was obligated under section 7114(b)(4) to release copies of documents or portions of documents containing management recommendations, concurrences, or opinions concerning the disputed disciplinary actions and denials of administrative leave. We conclude that release of this information would interfere with management's deliberative process which is prohibited by section 7106 of the Statute. Accordingly, we conclude that release of the information is prohibited from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4).

In National Labor Relations Board, 26 FLRA No. 13 (1987), we recently discussed an agency's right to engage in internal discussion and deliberation prior to making decisions under section 7106 and Authority precedent preserving the integrity of the process by which management reaches these decisions. Noting that the right of management officials to engage in free and open discussions and deliberations among themselves is an essential part of management's right to make decisions and to take actions under section 7106, we held that release of the recommendations of one management official to another concerning the exercise of a management right was prohibited by section 7106 and that the disclosure of the details of those recommendations was prohibited by law within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4).

In this case, we find, as we did in NLRB, that the release of the disputed information would interject the Union into and give it access to management's internal decision-making process involving decisions to take certain actions under section 7106. Specifically, we find that (1) the disputed decisions to impose disciplinary action are exercises of management's right under section 7106(a)(2)(A) to take disciplinary action; (2) the disputed decisions to deny administrative leave are encompassed by management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B); and (3) the recommendations, concurrences, or opinions of supervisors or managers concerning these decisions were part of management's deliberative process. Based on our decision in NLRB, we conclude that disclosure of the details of these recommendations, concurrences, and opinions is "prohibited by law" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4).

Our conclusions in this case and NLRB do not mean that the disclosure of all information concerning management actions taken under section 7106 is prohibited by law from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4). Nor do these decisions mean that a union's right to negotiate for the disclosure of information under section 7117 is coextensive with an agency's obligation to furnish that information under section 7114(b)(4). The considerations are often different. For example, in National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 23 FLRA No. 91 (1986), we found that a proposal concerning the release and disclosure of crediting plan and related rating information was nonnegotiable because it conflicted with a government-wide regulation. In contrast, in Department of the Army, Headquarters XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 26 FLRA No. 52 (1987), we found that the agency was obligated under section 7114(b)(4) to furnish certain crediting plan and related rating information in the context of grievances over disputed selection actions. As in other cases decided under section 7114(b)(4), case-by-case determinations are necessary. Our decisions in this case and in NLRB only mean that an agency is not obligated under section 7114(b)(4) to furnish information which would constitute an interference with management's deliberative process concerning the exercise of a management right under section 7106. In other words, disclosure of information which would interject the Union into and give it access to management's internal decisionmaking process involving such matters is prohibited by law from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4).

For these reasons, the Respondent did not fail to comply with section 7114(b)(4) in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) as alleged, and we will dismiss the complaints. In view of our conclusion, it is not necessary to reach the Respondent's other arguments.

V. ORDER

The complaints in Case Nos. 3-CA-60168, 3-CA-60182, 3-CA-60183, and 3-CA-60288 are dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C. March 31, 1987.

/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

(*) Section 7114(b)(4) provides:

(b) the duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to negotiate in good faith . . . shall include the obligation --

. . .

(4) in the case of an agency, to furnish to the exclusive representative involved, or its authorized representative, upon request and, to the extent not prohibited by law, data --

(A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular course of business;

(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining;

(C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided for management officials or supervisors, relating to collective bargaining(.)