26:0441(53)CA - National Park Service, National Capitol Region, Park Police and Police Association of District of Columbia -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ 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 bargaini