44:1545(120)CA - - NLRB and NLRB Union, Local 6 - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v44 p1545



[ v44 p1545 ]
44:1545(120)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


44 FLRA No. 120

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

(Respondent)

and

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNION

LOCAL 6

(Charging Party/Union)

2-CA-50471
38 FLRA 506 (1990)
32 FLRA 305 (1988)
26 FLRA 108 (1987)

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 National Labor Relations Board v. FLRA, 952 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (NLRB v. FLRA). 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 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 Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings.

II. Background

An employee in the Respondent's Pittsburgh Office requested a part-time work schedule pursuant to a provision in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. By memorandum dated January 25, 1985, the Pittsburgh Regional Director transmitted a copy of the employee's request to the Associate General Counsel and the Assistant General Counsel in Washington, D.C. The memorandum set forth, among other things, the Regional Director's recommendation concerning the request. After review of the employee's request and the Regional Director's memorandum, the Assistant General Counsel denied the employee's request. Thereafter, as relevant here, the Union requested a copy of the memorandum and filed a grievance over the denial of the employee's request. After the Respondent denied the Union's request for the memorandum, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge which resulted in the complaint in this case. The parties agreed to defer further processing of the grievance until compl