19:0132(12)CA - HHS Region II and Local 1760, AFGE -- 1985 FLRAdec CA

[ v19 p132 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 19 FLRA No. 12
 Charging Party
                                            Case No. 2-CA-20364
                            DECISION AND ORDER
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
 Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
 and Regulations.
    Upon consideration of the entire record, including the stipulation of
 facts, accompanying exhibits, and the parties' contentions, the
 Authority finds:
    The complaint alleges, in essence, that the Department of Health and
 Human Services, Region II (the Respondent) violated section 7116(a)(1),
 (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
 /1/ (the Statute) by refusing to furnish necessary information requested
 under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute /2/ by Local 1760, American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (the Union) in connection
 with the processing of an employee's grievance.
    The stipulated facts, including the parties' exhibits, show that an
 employee in a bargaining unit exclusively represented by the Union filed
 a grievance under the negotiated grievance procedure which alleged that
 she had been improperly denied a merit promotion by the Respondent's
 Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).  The grievance stated, "(T)he
 Merit Promotion Plan was not followed by this office when they selected
 two candidates for the position of Hearing Assistant, GS-6 on March 4,
 1982.  Specifically, no vacancy announcement was posted and neither was
 a promotion committee or best qualified list established.  This was a
 violation of the procedures in the Merit Promotion Plan." After filing
 the grievance, the employee designated the Union as her representative,
 and in order to support the grievance, the Union requested "the entire
 promotion package culminating in the Best Qualified List 20001G-82S . .
 . " The Respondent forwarded some of the promotion package, including,
 among other items, a copy of the vacancy announcement and a copy of the
 best qualified list of the individual candidates who were in the group
 from which the selection was made.  The Respondent did not forward the
 entire promotion package as requested by the Union.  Some of these
 documents were sanitized by deleting employee names, to make it
 impossible for the Union to determine what documents or ratings applied
 to the various candidates.  Items not supplied were documents such as
 the candidates' appraisals, copies of employee awards, copies of the
 SF-171 application forms, and