National Park Service, National Capital Region, United States Park Police and Police Association of the District of Columbia (Authority decision, June 6, 1988)

FLRA remand decision. The Authority sends four consolidated information-request cases to the Regional Director for further proceedings before an administrative law judge. It does not decide whether the Park Police must disclose the requested documents. The underlying unfair labor practice cases remain open, so this decision does not present a final judicial-review period under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The Police Association requested documents for four employee grievances, including managers' recommendations and opinions about discipline and leave decisions. The Park Police withheld those materials, and the Authority initially held that management rights barred disclosure. After a court rejected that rationale and returned the cases, the Authority found the stipulated record insufficient to decide whether the documents were necessary for representation or excluded as collective bargaining guidance. It sent the cases to the Regional Director for further factfinding by an administrative law judge. The disclosure question remains unresolved.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Information requests under 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4).
• Outcome: Four consolidated cases remanded for further factfinding.
• Key point: The record lacked the document contents needed to decide whether the requested information must be disclosed.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v32 p308 ]
32:0308(47)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

32 FLRA No. 47

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL CAPITAL 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

(26 FLRA 441)

DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND

I. Statement of the Case

These consolidated cases are before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Labor Relations Board Union, Local 6 v. FLRA, 842 F.2d 483 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (NLRBU Local 6).

The issue is whether the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by its failure to provide the Charging Party (the Union) with documents which are necessary for it to represent bargaining unit employees in grievances. For the following reasons, we have decided to remand these cases for findings of fact and consideration by an Authority Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Accordingly, we shall remand the cases to the Regional Director, who originally transferred the cases to us with a stipulated record, for appropriate action.(*)

II. Background

A. Facts

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 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.

B. Authority's Decision

In our decision, National Park Service, National Capital Region, United States Park Police, 26 FLRA 441 (1987), we concluded that the Respondent had not failed to comply with section 7114(b)(4). Rather, we concluded that disclosure of the documents or portions of documents to the Union was prohibited by section 7106 because it would improperly interject the Union into management's internal deliberative process concerning the exercise of management's rights to take disciplinary action and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B).

C. Court's Decision

In NLRBU Local 6 the court held that section 7106 does not forbid the disclosure of data and, therefore, it does not bar the disclosure of information under section 7114(b)(4). The court remanded the cases to us for consideration of whether the documents are nondisclosable on other grounds argued by the Respondent under section 7114(b)(4).

III. Analysis and Conclusion

Consistent with the court's decision, we must determine whether the documents sought by the Union are "necessary" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(B), and/or whether they constitute "guidance, advice, counsel, or training . . . relating to collective bargaining" under section 7114(b)(4)(C).

In our view, the stipulated record does not provide us with sufficient evidence to rule on these issues. The resolution of these issues depends on facts concerning the content of the documents, which are not provided with the stipulation. These facts are most appropriately found by an ALJ based on hearing testimony and, if deemed necessary by the ALJ, by the examination of the memorandum in camera upon its being furnished by the Respondent. Accordingly, as provided for in section 2429.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, we shall remand this case to the Regional Director for further processing.

ORDER

Case Nos. 3-CA-60168, 3-CA-60182, 3-CA-60183 and 3-CA-60288 are remanded to the Regional Director, Region III, for action consistent with this decision.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,

__________
Jerry L. Calhoun,
Chairman
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

*/ The Union has filed a motion "to intervene and file a brief" in connection with our consideration of these cases under the court's remand. The Respondent has filed an opposition. Pursuant to part 2423 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the Union is a party to these cases and is entitled to participate in the proceedings which arise in connection with our remand of the cases to the Regional Director. Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion without prejudice to such participation.