24:0154(22)CA - Defense Mapping Agency, Washington, DC and Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis, MO and NFFE Local 1827 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v24 p154 ]
24:0154(22)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 24 FLRA No. 22
 
 DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY, 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. AND DEFENSE 
 MAPPING AGENCY AEROSPACE 
 CENTER, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1827
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-50623
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, Defense Mapping
 Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri (DMAAC) had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
 recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
 certain affirmative action.  The Judge further found that the
 Respondent, Defense Mapping Agency, Washington, D.C. (DMA) had not
 engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
 recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleged a violation by
 Respondent DMA be dismissed.  Thereafter, the Respondents filed
 exceptions to the Judge's Decision concerning DMAAC.  The General
 Counsel also filed exceptions limited to the Judge's discussion of
 "presumptive relevance."
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
 Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority adopts the Judge's
 findings, conclusions and recommended Order.
 
    In agreement with the Judge, the Authority concludes that the
 Respondent (DMAAC) violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the
 Statute by failing and refusing to furnish the Charging Party (Union)
 with certain data from the Inspector General's 1985 Report it requested
 pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
 
    In so concluding the Authority notes that the Judge specifically
 found, after considering the nature of the request and the circumstances
 in the case, that the information sought by the Union was necessary for
 it to perform its representational duties within the meaning of section
 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, and further did not constitute guidance,
 advice, counsel or training for management representatives under section
 7114(b)(4)(C).  /*/ In particular the Judge considered, among other
 things, the fact that:  the report contained material obtained after
 management spoke and conferred with unit employees;  the report
 contained information related to unit employees' conditions of
 employment (for example, health, safety, security, etc.);  and the Union
 was willing to accept the report in a sanitized form.
 
    Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, we conclude in
 agreement with the Judge that the requested information was necessary in
 order for the Union to perform its representational duties.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St.
 Louis, Missouri shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing and refusing to furnish to the National Federation of
 Federal Employees, Local 1827 those portions of the 1985 Defense Mapping
 Agency Inspector General's Report containing factual findings of unit
 employees' conditions of employment at Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action:
 
    (a) Upon request, provide to the National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1827 those portions of the 1985 Defense Mapping Agency
 Inspector General's Report containing factual findings of unit
 employees' conditions of employment at Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri.  The report may be sanitized to exclude
 management's opinion and evaluation of internal matters and DMAAC's
 operations.
 
    (b) Post at its facility at St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the
 attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms they shall be signed by the
 Director and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
 thereafter, in conspicuous places, including bulletin boards and other
 places where such notices are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps
 shall be taken to ensure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or
 covered by any other material.
 
    (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that insofar as the complaint alleges a
 violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by
 Respondent Defense Mapping Agency, Washington, D.C., it is hereby
 dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., November 21, 1986.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide the National Federation of
 Federal Employees, Local 1827 those portions of the 1985 Defense Mapping
 Agency Inspector General's Report containing factual findings of unit
 employees' conditions of employment at Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL, upon request, provide to the National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1827 those portions of the 1985 Defense Mapping Agency
 Inspector General's Report containing factual findings of unit
 employees' conditions of employment at Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri.  The report may be sanitized to exclude
 management's opinion and evaluation of internal matters and DMAAC's
 operations.
                                       (Activity)
 
    Dated:  By:  (Signature) (Title)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
 material.
 
    If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
 with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
 Director, Region VII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  535 - 16th Street, Suite 310, Denver, CO 80202, and whose telephone
 number is:  (303) 837-5224.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No.: 7-CA-50623
 
 DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND 
 DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY AEROSPACE CENTER, 
 ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1827
    Charging Party
 
    Howard Bishop, Jr., Esq.
    For Respondent
 
    Cathy A. Auble, Esq.
    For General Counsel
 
    Before:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on December 12,
 1985, by the Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, Region VII, a hearing was held before the undersigned on
 January 15, 1986 at St. Louis, Missouri.
 
    This case arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101, et seq. (herein called the Statute).  It
 is based on a second amended charge filed on December 9, 1985 by
 National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1827 (herein called the
 Union) against Defense Mapping Agency, Washington, D.C. (herein called
 DMA or Respondent DMA) and Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St.
 Louis, Missouri (herein called DMAAC or Respondent DMAAC).
 
    The Complaint alleged, in substance, that on or about August 8 and
 September 5, 1985 the Union requested Respondent DMAAC to furnish it
 with the sanitized Inspector General Report regarding the 1985
 inspection conducted at its facility in St. Louis, Missouri.  The said
 data, it is alleged, was necessary for full and proper discussion,
 understanding and negotiation of subjects within the scope of
 bargaining.
 
    The Complaint also alleged that on or about August 15 and September
 11, 1985, (a) Respondent DMA instructed Respondent DMAAC not to furnish
 the information requested by the Union;  (b) Respondents failed and
 refused to furnish the information so requested -- all of which
 constituted a failure to comply with Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute
 and is violative of Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) thereof.
 
    Respondent's Answer, while admitting that DMAAC refused to furnish
 the data sought by the Union, denied that it was requested in sanitized
 form.  It also denied the commission of any unfair labor practices under
 the Statute.
 
    All parties were represented at the hearing.  Each was afforded full
 opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
 cross-examine witnesses.  Thereafter briefs were filed with the
 undersigned, which have been duly considered.  /1/
 
    Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
 and their demeanor and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced at
 the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  At all times material herein the Union has been, and still is,
 the exclusive bargaining representative of all non-professional
 employees of the Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center located in the
 St. Louis, Missouri area, with specified exclusions from the aforesaid
 unit.
 
    2.  At all times material herein the Union and Respondent DMAAC were
 parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering the employees in
 the aforesaid unit.
 
    3.  The DMA, whose headquarters are in Washington, D.C., supports the
 Joint Chief of Staff and the Services with mapping, charting, and
 geodetic information.  It produces maps and charts of terrain which are
 used by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
 
    4.  The DMAAC is a component of DMA.  It produces aeronautical type
 charts and associated products used in aviation, as well as digital
 products used in command and control and weapon systems.  The DMAAC has
 about 4,000 employees.
 
    5.  Attached to DMA is an Inspector General (IG) who, together with
 his staff, conducts an inspection annually of DMAAC.  This is done in
 order to evaluate to component's management and determine its
 effectiveness, efficiency and readiness to perform its mission.  The IG
 reviews the regulations published by the agency, management reports, and
 complaints registered by employees since the previous inspection.  His
 staff is on the lookout for fraud, abuse or waste.
 
    6.  Upon conducting his inspection the IG holds "sensing" sessions
 with the DMAAC employees.  These are undertaken to ascertain what are
 the problems from the viewpoint of employees.  A briefing session is
 held with the Command group, and the IG staff speaks to top managers,
 supervisors and employees.
 
    7.  A report is written by the IG which provides the DMA Director
 with an evaluation of DMAAC's operations.  It is a narrative summary
 with findings on problem areas or deficiencies.  The report covers such
 matters as:  compliance with statutes and regulations;  health and
 safety;  security clearances;  and classification of positions.  While
 conditions of employment are discussed in the report, no attempt is made
 to deal therein with the performance of DMAAC employees.  It is deemed
 to be a management report which discusses the cause and effect of
 problems and deficiencies.  Although recommendations may be made by the
 IG, he has no authority to implement them or to order anything to be
 done by DMAAC.
 
    8.  Record facts show that the Union received a copy of the IG report
 from DMA in 1980 which it used in connection with negotiations for the
 1982 contract.  /2/ Further, that it utilized a copy of an IG report
 from DMAAC when negotiating the 1977 contract.
 
    9.  In June, 1985 Colonel Maune, as IG for Respondent DMA, headed a
 team which conducted an inspection of DMAAC.  Maune met with Virgil
 Hahn, then president of the Union, as well as Elmer Hacker, then
 secretary-treasurer /3/ of the Union, and Francis Jett, its chief shop
 steward.  Several matters or subjects which were raised by the Union
 included:  EEO, security problems of employees, mandatory overtime, and
 a classification appeal involving the photographers.  /4/ IG Maune spoke
 to at least 20 individuals re these problems.
 
    10.  In a letter dated August 8, 1985, Elmer Hacker, president of the
 Union, wrote L. P. Eaves, Labor Relations Officer for DMAAC, and
 requested a copy of the IG inspection report of 1985.  The request was
 made in accordance with Article 14-1 and 14-2 of the collective
 bargaining agreement.
 
    11.  Under Article 14-1 and 14-2 of the parties' agreement Respondent
 DMAAC is obliged to furnish all information, data or material which is
 relevant and necessary for the discharge of the Union's obligation under
 Public Law 95-45 and the agreement.  This was stated to include, but not
 limited to, such copies of such terms as:  (a) OPM, MSPB, DMA
 Regulations, AC instructions, or other regulations bearing on policies,
 practices, procedures and working conditions;  (b) DOD & EEOC
 Regulations;  (c) Mini-EEO plans of Affirmative Action;  (c) Specific
 information requested for investigating or processing
 complaints/grievances/appeals.  Statistical data supplied shall be from
 documents normally maintained in the regular course of business and in
 reasonably understandable form.
 
    12.  The record reflects that the request for the 1985 IG report was
 made to learn the findings of the inspection that dealt with the
 employees, and their working conditions.  Further, the Union wanted to
 see what, if any, violations of regulations occurred as well as any uses
 of regulations which were contrary to the bargaining agreement.  In such
 instances, the Union insisted it may want to grieve over same.
 
    13.  Eaves replied to the Union's request in a letter dated August
 15, 1985.  He stated therein that the report is an itnernal,
 confidential management document which does not have to be released
 under Article 14 of the contract.  He denied the request.
 
    14.  Following the written denial by Eaves discussions ensued between
 Eaves and Union officials Hacker and Jett re the IG report of 1985.  The
 Union representatives attempted to obtain the report by persuading Eaves
 to furnish same.  They also indicated a willingness to accept it in a
 sanitized form.  Eaves refused, again repeating that the report
 contained confidential information.  The record reflects that the Eaves
 made the decision to deny the Union's request, and that he had not been
 instructed by DMA to do so.  /5/
 
    15.  In a letter dated September 5, 1985 Hacker renewed the Union's
 request for the IG report, reciting that it was needed because the Union
 believed the report contained a survey and analysis of personnel
 policies, practices or conditions of employment.  Further, Hacker stated
 it was essential that it be reviewed so that the Union could police its
 contract and assess the impact upon actual or potential grievances.
 
    16.  The aforesaid request was again denied in a letter dated
 September 11, 1985 from Eaves to Hacker.
 
    17.  Hacker testified that four named employees in the bargaining
 unit have seen the 1985 IG report and were allowed to read it.  Further,
 that the Civilian Welfare Committee had access to it.  Hacker also
 testified that a named non-bargaining unit employee, a restaurant
 officer, had read the report.  The basis for the foregoing, rested on
 the Union president's testimony that these named individuals told him
 they had read the document.  Eaves testified he was unaware of any
 instances where prime IG reports were released to the Union.  Colonel
 Stockhausen the IG, testified the report is not to be disseminated and
 it is the policy to keep the report within the management staff.  The
 testimony by Hacker regarding the fact that other employees have been
 permitted to read the report is hearsay in nature.  Moreover, there is
 nothing else in the record supporting a finding that management provided
 others with the 1985 IG report.  While it may have occurred, I do not
 find that Respondents either gave the report to non-management people or
 afforded them an opportunity to read it.  The IG report was considered
 by Respondents to be confidential in nature and for distribution only to
 management personnel.
 
    18.  DMA published an instruction dated August 29, 1984, currently in
 effect, which is designated as DMA INSTRUCTION 5700.2.  It deals with
 the subject:  "The Defense Mapping Agency Inspection Program." (Resp.
 Exh. 1).  The Inspection Program applies to DMA Headquarters and the DMA
 Components.  It is designed, according to the Instruction, to check the
 readiness of the components to perform its mission and the efficiency of
 its operation.  The Inspector General of DMA is charged with
 responsibility to conduct the inspection.  He is mandated to schedule
 personal conference periods so individuals may present complaints or
 request advice;  to schedule "sensing" sessions to sample non-managerial
 employees for their opinions on different topics, including such items
 as security, facilities, safety, logistics and operations (paragraph
 10(h) and (i), Resp. Exh. 1) DMAAC is required to follow the procedures
 established under DMA INSTRUCTION 5700.2.  Paragraph 12(b) of the
 INSTRUCTION, entitled "Inspection Reports", provides that the reports
 are privileged documents and not releasable to anyone outside the DMA
 without the approval of the Director, DMA.
 
                                Conclusions
 
    It is contended by General Counsel that Respondent DMAAC was obliged,
 under 7114(b)(4) of the Statute to furnish the Union with the IG Report
 covering the St. Louis facility.  The report, it is asserted, includes
 information obtained from unit employees whose working conditions would
 be impacted by any changes resulting from the investigation.  General
 Counsel insists that the Union needs the Report in order to police the
 contract, as well as effectively represent employees in discussions with
 management.  Having refused to provide the said data, Respondent DMAAC
 has allegedly run afoul of 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
 
    A further contention is made that Respondent DMA, the headquarters in
 Washington, D.C., violated 7116(a)(1) and (5) by instructing and
 directing Respondent DMAAC -- its component -- not to furnish the IG
 Report to the Union.
 
    Respondents, in disputing any obligation to supply the Report, insist
 that:  (a) The Union's requests were not specific and definitive so as
 to establish that the data was necessary and relevant to its
 representational functions;  (b) the requested information is not
 necessary nor relevant for the Union to perform such duties;  (c) under
 7114(b)(4) of the Statute it is not encumbent on Respondent to furnish
 the report since it is an internal management document which has no
 direct relationship to conditions of employment;  (d) Respondent DMA,
 the headquarters, is in no event responsible for any refusal to furnish
 the IG Report since the decision was made by Respondent DMAAC alone.
 
    In conformity with its obligation to negotiate in good faith, an
 agency is required to furnish data to the bargaining representative
 under certain circumstances.  This obligation is codified in Section
 7114(b) of the Statute, the pertinent provisions of which are as
 follows:
 
          Representation rights and duties
 
                       * * * * *
 
 
          (b) The duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to
       negotiate in good faith under subsection (a) of this section 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;  . . .
 
    Under the foregoing statutory language it must be shown that the
 information requested is necessary for the union to fulfill its
 representational functions.  In this respect consideration must be given
 to the nature of the request for the data as well as the circumstances
 in each case.  See Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Fort
 Carson, Colorado, 17 FLRA No. 92, Respondents herein insist that the
 requests by the Union were too broad and unspecific to permit DMAAC to
 determine if the information was relevant and necessary to the Union's
 representational function.  It is contended that the requests failed to
 identify the type of information sought by specific subject matter.
 
    It is true that an obligation is imposed upon a union to request data
 in a manner which will not compel an agency to speculate or conjecture
 as to what is sought by the representative.  The Authority has frowned
 on requests which are broader than what is reasonably needed to
 administer or police contractual provisions of an agreement.  Thus, a
 failure to mention time periods for certain conformation re contracts
 "let out" was deemed indefinite.  Director of Administration,
 Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, 6 FLRA No. 24.  Further, as stated therein
 by Judge Dowd, the Union's right to information "for the purpose of
 contract administration and policing a particular contract provision has
 support in the case law only where the union is able to show relevance."
 Thus, a mere assertion by a union that it needs data to process a
 grievance does not automatically oblige an agency to furnish same.  No
 presumptive relevance necessarily attaches thereto.  See Department of
 the Treasury, United States Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida,
 18 FLRA No. 53.
 
    In the case at bar I am not persuaded that, in light of the
 circumstances, the request for the IG Report by the Union was too broad
 or indefinite so as to vitiate any responsibility on management's past
 to furnish same.  In regard to the request made on August 8, 1985, I
 would agree that it reflects no relevance nor necessity for the data
 within the meaning of 7114(b)(4)(B).  The mere assertion that the demand
 was in accordance with Article 14-1, 14-2 of the collective bargaining
 agreement discloses no relevance.  Such a request is not tied to any
 specific employment condition nor does it show, on its face, that it is
 necessary to negotiating any subject with management.  While the
 particular article of the agreement, which was mentioned in the said
 request, obliges the agency to furnish information to the Union, it
 refers to various government rules and regulations.  Further, it merely
 requires that DMAAC supply data needed for the Union's investigating or
 processing complaints or grievances.  Such a provision does not dispense
 with the statutory requirement that the relevance and necessity for
 information be shown or declared in the request.
 
    The record does reflect, however, that on September 5, 1985 the Union
 renewed its request for the IG Report.  More definitely, it stated the
 Union believed the Report contained a survey and analysis of personnel
 practices, policies and working conditions;  that the Union wanted to
 review the Report in order to police the contract and assess its impact
 on possible grievances.  Moreover, the Union indicated its willingness,
 after Eaves refused the initial request on August 15, 1985, to accept
 the Report in sanitized forms, at which time management advised the
 Union official it was confidential and couldn't be released.  While this
 request may not be termed "presumptively relevant", the circumstances
 surrounding it warrant the conclusion that the demand was necessary for
 discussion, understanding and negotiation within the meaning of
 7114(b)(4)(B).  Support for this view is seen in light of the fact that:
  (a) the Report contained material obtained after management spoke and
 conferred with about 20 employees;  (b) "sensing" sessions were held
 with employees inquiring as to problems concerning safety and equal
 opportunity;  (c) the Report dealt with such subjects as health and
 safety, security, and position classifications;  (d) the Union's
 willingness to accept a sanitized version of the said Report.
 
    Since the Report contains information pertaining to the foregoing
 conditions of employment obtained, in part, after discussions with
 employees, it is certainly understandable that the Union would utilize
 this data in some negotiations with DMAAC.  Further, it appears that the
 Union, based on its willingness to accept the Report after sanitization,
 was interested only in those aspects of the Report bearing on working
 conditions affecting the unit employees.  While other aspects of the
 Report may involve a review or analysis of management, its supervisory
 hierachy, or internal operations, a request for information limited to
 these conditions of employment affecting the unit involves a demand for
 relevant and necessary data under the Statute.  See American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1708 and Military Ocean
 Terminal, Sunny Point, Southport, S.C., 15 FLRA No. 1 (where the
 Authority deemed negotiable a union proposal that information derived
 from work studies be provided to the union).
 
    A somewhat similar situation to the one at bar existed in Department
 of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Field
 Assessment Office, 12 FLRA No. 84.  Management dispatched its analysts
 to conduct a study of travel practices of its Evaluation Staff in a
 regional office.  The analysts interviewed unit employees in regard
 thereto and then turned in reports with their findings.  It was held
 that the agency must supply the reports to the extent they contain
 factual findings as to travel practices existent in the region.  Since
 the reports contained facts elicited from employees re travel problems,
 it was concluded that the Region could be expected to maintain such
 information in its files for use in discussions with the union re travel
 problems in the region.  Thus, the findings of the analysts in that
 regard were deemed "necessary" to collective bargaining.  /6/
 
    Respondents attempt to distinguish the foregoing case from the one at
 hand.  It is asserted that the purpose of the IG Report was not to
 gather information for use in changing working conditions, which was the
 aim in the cited case.  Further, that no bargaining or ongoing
 discussions with the Union herein were in progress, whereas the parties
 in the Social Security case, supra, were conferring re travel practices.
  I am satisfied, based on the record herein, that the Union was
 interested in the findings concerning working conditions as they
 affected employees.  In its request the Union so stated.  There is no
 indication that the bargaining representative wanted internal management
 data, and this is buttressed by a willingness to accept the Report on
 sanitized forms.  It is not determinative that the parties herein were
 not engaged in contract discussions or negotiations.  A union may
 utilize information in preparation for bargaining, or for proposals to
 management in connection with working conditions.  It is not a
 prerequisite that actual bargaining be in progress before a union is
 entitled to necessary and relevant information.  See I. G. Case v. NLRB,
 253 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. 1958).
 
    Respondents insist that the Report discusses matters outside the
 scope of bargaining.  Further, that it contains opinions of management
 as well as evaluations which are not necessary to the union's
 representational functions.  Nevertheless, Eaves testified that there
 were terms in the Report that dealt with conditions of employment.  To
 the extent that the Report evaluated its operations at DMAAC and
 contained material of a confidential nature, I would agree that the
 Union would not be entitled to such data.  See Detroit Ednmo v.
 N.L.R.B., 440 U.S. 301.  However, there is no issue of confidentiality
 herein inasmuch as the Union expressed its willingness to accept the
 Report in sanitized form.  Under those circumstances Respondents need
 furnish only those factual findings based on discussions with unit
 employees concerning working conditions -- the latter to include such
 matters as health and safety, security, and position description.
 
    In sum, I conclude that the 1985 IG Report involving the component,
 Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri, insofar as
 it pertains to data obtained from employees thereat concerning their
 various working conditions and employment is necessary and relevant for
 full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiation of collective
 bargaining subjects within the meaning of Section 7114(b)(4)(B);  and
 that such portion thereof does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel
 or training for management representatives under subdivision (C) of that
 section.  /7/ As such, the Union was entitled to receive same, and the
 failure or refusal by Respondent DMAAC to furnish said particular part
 of the Report was violative of Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the
 Statute.
 
    In respect to the responsibility of Respondent DMA for the refusal to
 furnish the data to the Union, I conclude that it played no part in such
 conduct.  The Authority has held, it is true, that where higher level
 management prevents agency management at the level of exclusive
 recognition from fulfilling its bargaining obligation, such conduct will
 constitute an unfair labor practice.  Department of Health and Human
 Services, et al., 10 FLRA No. 9;  Department of the Interior, Water and
 Power Resources Service, Grand Coulee Project, Grand Coulee, Washington,
 9 FLRA No. 46.  In both of the cited cases the higher level directed
 lower level management in respect to the action taken by the latter,
 which is markedly different from the occurrence herein.  Record facts
 disclose that DMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. did not direct or
 order the component to refuse to furnish the data to the Union;  that
 the decision to so refuse was made by Eaves, DMAAC's Labor Relation
 Specialist, with no impact or direction from the headquarters;  and that
 the latter took no steps to prevent DMAAC from fulfilling its obligation
 to supply data as required under the Statute.  Accordingly, I conclude
 Respondent DMA has not violated the Statute herein as alleged.
 
    Having concluded that Respondent Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri violated Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of
 the Statute, it is recommended that the Authority issue the following:
 
                                 ORDER /8/
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing and refusing to provide to National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1827 those portions of the 1985 Defenses Mapping Agency
 Inspector General's Report containing factual findings of unit
 employees' conditions of employment at Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action:
 
    (a) Upon request, provide to National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1827 those portions of the 1985 Defense Mapping Agency
 Inspector General's Report containing factual findings of unit
 employees' condition of employment at Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace
 Center, St. Louis, Missouri.
 
    (b) Post at its facility at St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the
 attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms they shall be signed by the
 Director, or his designee, and shall be posted and maintained by him for
 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including bulletin
 boards and other places where notices are customarily posted.  The
 Director shall take reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not
 altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
 
    (c) Notify the Regional Director, Region VII, in writing, within 30
 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to
 comply herewith.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint insofar as it alleges
 a violation of Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by
 Respondent Defense Mapping Agency, Washington, D.C. be, and it hereby
 is, dismissed.
 
                                       /s/ William Naimark
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  June 6, 1986
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (*) Noting the Judge's finding in this regard, we conclude, contrary
 to the General Counsel's exceptions, that the Judge did not apply a
 "presumptive relevance" standard.  Rather, he found, and we agree, that
 the information was necessary in the circumstances of this case within
 the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
 
    (1) Subsequent to the hearing, General Counsel filed a Motion to
 Correct the Transcript.  No objections having been filed thereto, and it
 appearing that the proposed corrections are proper,