Rolla Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 934 (Authority decision, March 25, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. On partial reconsideration, the Authority adds a bargaining violation to its earlier finding concerning the center's refusal to furnish information to the union. It dismisses the remainder of the motion. 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 Authority had previously found that the Rolla Research Center unlawfully withheld information needed by NFFE Local 934 and refused to convene a joint committee required by the parties' agreement. Its General Counsel asked it to reconsider two portions of that decision. The Authority agreed that it had overlooked the judge's finding that the information refusal also violated the duty to bargain, and it modified the earlier decision to adopt that finding. It rejected the second request because its earlier decision had already found that the refusal to convene the committee violated the duty to bargain.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7114(b)(4), 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8); 5 C.F.R. § 2429.17.
• Outcome: Reconsideration granted in part; prior decision modified to add section 7116(a)(5) finding.
• Key point: The judge's supported bargaining violation finding on the information refusal had been overlooked in the prior decision.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v31 p1010 ]

31:1010(82)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA No. 82

ROLLA RESEARCH CENTER
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES
ROLLA, MISSOURI

Respondent

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 934

Charging Party

Case Nos. 7-CA-60066
7-CA-60128
(29 FLRA 107)

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

On September 28, 1987, the Authority issued a Decision and Order in this case. 29 FLRA 107 (1987). The General Counsel has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting that due to administrative oversight, certain portions of that decision require clarification. The Respondent filed a reply to the motion.

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a decision. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted in part and dismissed in part.

II. The Authority's Decision in 29 FLRA 107

We held that the Respondent failed to furnish information to the Union which was necessary for the Union to carry out its representational duties. We concluded that the failure to furnish the requested information was contrary to the requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and, [PAGE] therefore, violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8). We stated that the Judge failed to make a specific finding on an allegation that the failure to furnish data also violated section 7116(a)(5) and did not specifically pass on that allegation. As there were no exceptions, we noted that we would not modify the Judge's decision.

We also found that by declining to convene a Joint Committee as provided by the parties' negotiated agreement, the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute because the Union was thereby precluded from proceeding to arbitration. In addition, we found that the refusal to refer the matter to the Joint Committee violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5), because it had the effect of repudiating the negotiated grievance procedure.

III. Positions of the Parties

The General Counsel points out that the Judge did conclude that the refusal to release the information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute. The Respondent contends in its reply that no finding of fact or reasons were given to support the section 7116(a)(5) portion of the Judge's conclusion.

As a second basis for requesting reconsideration, the General Counsel states that our decision did not find that the failure to convene a Joint Committee also violated section 7116(a)(5). The Respondent in its reply to this second point states that the Judge and the Authority found a violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) based on the Respondent's failure to convene the Joint Committee.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

On reconsideration, we find that the Judge concluded that the failure to release information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8). 27 FLRA at 157. We find further that his conclusion was based upon a recitation and analysis of the facts which are sufficient to support his conclusion. 27 FLRA at 149-50. Accordingly, we hereby modify our decision to adopt the Judge's conclusion that the General Counsel established that the refusal to furnish the requested information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8).

However, we find that the General Counsel's second assertion in requesting consideration is not sustained. Therefore, the motion must be dismissed in part. Contrary to the General Counsel's assertion, our decision specifically [ v31 p2 ] states that the Respondent "violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) by repudiating the negotiated agreement" by the acts of "not convening the Joint Committee, thereby precluding the Union from proceeding to arbitration." 29 FLRA at 115. Therefore, the motion is dismissed as to this assertion.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY