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 bargaining within the meaning of
 section 7114(b)(4)(C) and that the information is not otherwise excepted
 from the obligation to furnish information under the Statute.  Thus, the
 General Counsel contends that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the
 requested data constitutes a refusal to comply with section 7114(b)(4)
 as alleged in the complaint.
 
    The Respondent argues that the information which it refused to
 furnish is not necessary and relevant and constitutes guidance, advice,
 or counsel within the meanings of section 7114(b)(4).  The Respondent
 also argues that the release of the requested information constituting
 recommendations, concurrences, or opinions of supervisors or managers is
 prohibited because release of this information would interfere with
 management's deliberative process concerning the exercise of management
 rights under section 7106(a) to take disciplinary action and assign
 work.
 
                       IV.  ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    We must determine in this case whether the Respondent was obligated
 under section 7114(b)(4) to release copies of documents or portions of
 documents containing management recommendations, concurrences, or
 opinions concerning the disputed disciplinary actions and denials of
 administrative leave.  We conclude that release of this information
 would interfere with management's deliberative process which is
 prohibited by section 7106 of the Statute.  Accordingly, we conclude
 that release of the information is prohibited from disclosure under
 section 7114(b)(4).
 
    In National Labor Relations Board, 26 FLRA No. 13 (1987), we recently
 discussed an agency's right to engage in internal discussion and
 deliberation prior to making decisions under section 7106 and Authority
 precedent preserving the integrity of the process by which management
 reaches these decisions.  Noting that the right of management officials
 to engage in free and open discussions and deliberations among
 themselves is an essential part of management's right to make decisions
 and to take actions under section 7106, we held that release of the
 recommendations of one management official to another concerning the
 exercise of a management right was prohibited by section 7106 and that
 the disclosure of the details of those recommendations was prohibited by
 law within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4).
 
    In this case, we find, as we did in NLRB, that the release of the
 disputed information would interject the Union into and give it access
 to management's internal decision-making process involving decisions to
 take certain actions under section 7106.  Specifically, we find that (1)
 the disputed decisions to impose disciplinary action are exercises of
 management's right under section 7106(a)(2)(A) to take disciplinary
 action;  (2) the disputed decisions to deny administrative leave are
 encompassed by management's right to assign work under section
 7106(a)(2)(B);  and (3) the recommendations, concurrences, or opinions
 of supervisors or managers concerning these decisions were part of
 management's deliberative process.  Based on our decision in NLRB, we
 conclude that disclosure of the details of these recommendations,
 concurrences, and opinions is "prohibited by law" within the meaning of
 section 7114(b)(4).
 
    Our conclusions in this case and NLRB do not mean that the disclosure
 of all information concerning management actions taken under section
 7106 is prohibited by law from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4).  Nor
 do these decisions mean that a union's right to negotiate for the
 disclosure of information under section 7117 is coextensive with an
 agency's obligation to furnish that information under section
 7114(b)(4).  The considerations are often different.  For example, in
 National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, U.S.
 Customs Service, 23 FLRA No. 91 (1986), we found that a proposal
 concerning the release and disclosure of crediting plan and related
 rating information was nonnegotiable because it conflicted with a
 government-wide regulation.  In contrast, in Department of the Army,
 Headquarters XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North
 Carolina, 26 FLRA No. 52 (1987), we found that the agency was obligated
 under section 7114(b)(4) to furnish certain crediting plan and related
 rating information in the context of grievances over disputed selection
 actions.  As in other cases decided under section 7114(b)(4),
 case-by-case determinations are necessary.  Our decisions in this case
 and in NLRB only mean that an agency is not obligated under section
 7114(b)(4) to furnish information which would constitute an interference
 with management's deliberative process concerning the exercise of a
 management right under section 7106.  In other words, disclosure of
 information which would interject the Union into and give it access to
 management's internal decisionmaking process involving such matters is
 prohibited by law from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4).
 
    For these reasons, the Respondent did not fail to comply with section
 7114(b)(4) in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) as alleged,
 and we will dismiss the complaints.  In view of our conclusion, it is
 not necessary to reach the Respondent's other arguments.
 
                                 V.  ORDER
 
    The complaints in Case Nos. 3-CA-60168, 3-CA-60182, 3-CA-60183, and
 3-CA-60288 are dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C. March 31, 1987.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (*) Section 7114(b)(4) provides:
 
    (b) the duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to
 negotiate in good faith . . . 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;
 
          (C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or
       training provided for management officials or supervisors,
       relating to collective bargaining(.) 
 
 
 


</