[ v32 p308 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
32 FLRA No. 47
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
UNITED STATES PARK POLICE
POLICE ASSOCIATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case Nos. 3-CA-60168
(26 FLRA 441)
DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND
I. Statement of the Case
These consolidated cases are 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 Union, Local 6 v. FLRA, 842 F.2d 483 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (NLRBU Local 6).
The issue is whether the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by its failure to provide the Charging Party (the Union) with documents which are necessary for it to represent bargaining unit employees in grievances. For the following reasons, we have decided to remand these cases for findings of fact and consideration by an Authority Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Accordingly, we shall remand the cases to the Regional Director, who originally transferred the cases to us with a stipulated record, for appropriate action.(*)
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 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.
B. Authority's Decision
In our decision, National Park Service, National Capital Region, United States Park Police, 26 FLRA 441 (1987), we concluded that the Respondent had not failed to comply with section 7114(b)(4). Rather, we concluded that disclosure of the documents or portions of documents to the Union was prohibited by section 7106 because it would improperly interject the Union into management's internal deliberative process concerning the exercise of management's rights to take disciplinary action and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B).
C. Court's Decision
In NLRBU Local 6 the court held that section 7106 does not forbid the disclosure of data and, therefore, it does not bar the disclosure of information under section 7114(b)(4). The court remanded the cases to us for consideration of whether the documents are nondisclosable on other grounds argued by the Respondent under section 7114(b)(4).
III. Analysis and Conclusion
Consistent with the court's decision, we must determine whether the documents sought by the Union are "necessary" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(B), and/or whether they constitute "guidance, advice, counsel, or training . . . relating to collective bargaining" under section 7114(b)(4)(C).
In our view, the stipulated record does not provide us with sufficient evidence to rule on these issues. The resolution of these issues depends on facts concerning the content of the documents, which are not provided with the stipulation. These facts are most appropriately found by an ALJ based on hearing testimony and, if deemed necessary by the ALJ, by the examination of the memorandum in camera upon its being furnished by the Respondent. Accordingly, as provided for in section 2429.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, we shall remand this case to the Regional Director for further processing.
Case Nos. 3-CA-60168, 3-CA-60182, 3-CA-60183 and 3-CA-60288 are remanded to the Regional Director, Region III, for action consistent with this decision.
Issued, Washington, D.C.,
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
*/ The Union has filed a motion "to intervene and file a brief" in connection with our consideration of these cases under the court's remand. The Respondent has filed an opposition. Pursuant to part 2423 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the Union is a party to these cases and is entitled to participate in the proceedings which arise in connection with our remand of the cases to the Regional Director. Accordingly, we deny the Union's motion without prejudice to such participation.