44:1540(118)CA - - DOL, Washington, DC and National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFGE - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v44 p1540



[ v44 p1540 ]
44:1540(118)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


44 FLRA No. 118

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Respondent/Agency)

and

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AFL-CIO

(Charging Party/Union)

7-CA-90697

39 FLRA 531 (1991)

DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND

May 29, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States Department of Labor v. FLRA, No. 91-1174 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 7, 1992) (mem.) (DOL v. FLRA). The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) by refusing to furnish the Union with certain information requested under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. For the following reasons, we conclude that the complaint must be remanded to the Regional Director for appropriate action.

II. Background

In connection with its preparation for arbitration hearings arising from disciplinary suspensions of five unit employees, the Union requested, under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, records of certain previous suspensions. The Respondent refused to furnish the requested information on the ground, as relevant here, that the information was not necessary for the Union to perform its representational functions. Based on a stipulated record, the Authority concluded, for reasons fully stated in U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 39 FLRA 531, 536-39 (1991) (Labor), that the requested information was necessary, within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, and that the Respondent's failure to furnish the information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8). The Authority directed the Respondent, among other things, to furnish the requested information to the Union.

In DOL v. FLRA, the court referenced its decision in National Labor Relations Board v. FLRA, 952 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (NLRB v. FLRA) and stated that NLRB v. FLRA constituted a rejection of the analysis used by the Authority in Labor to find that the requested information was necessary. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the Authority to reconsider in light of NLRB v. FLRA.

III. Analysis and Conclusions

Pursuant to the court's order in DOL v. FLRA, we must reconsider the Authority's previous determination that the requested information is necessary, within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute. In particular, we must reconsider that determination in light of the court's decision in NLRB v. FLRA concerning section 7114(b)(4)(B). NLRB v. FLRA, 952 F.2d at 531-34. In order to provide the parties with an opportunity to address the application of NLRB v. FLRA to this case and to reopen the record for further stipulations or a hearing by an administrative law judge relevant to such application, we will remand this